How "dust proof" is your E5?

[lowa2]

Mine sure aint! I just got a message from the repair center saying that sand was found internally, and my warranty is pooched. I put my E1 & E3 through MUCH MUCH worst weather and dust than I did this E5 (just shot a wedding on the beach w/ 50-200), and I've never had an issue.

I will call them and talk to them about the voided warranty, but I was expecting the E5 to hold up a little better!

end rant.

 

[Gregm61]

I used mine over 4 days in White Sands, NM in March. There was a lot of wind and blowing sand that was very visible in a lot of my shots..



I had my backpack down on the sand, switching between my 12-60, 50-200, 9-18 and 8mm fisheye the entire time and didn't have one instance of needing to dust spot an image and the camera is clean as a whistle. My tripod head had dust in every corner and seam..

 

[dpalugyay]

The only way sand is going to get in your camera is when you switch lenses while the sand is airborne. No other way except through that big gaping hole where the lens mount is.

That has absolutely nothing to do with weather sealing, and it is not the camera's fault.

 

[Jay Jenner]

Gorgeous shot there GregM. I want to go there.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jdloudon/

 

[Photog74]

I know the 50-200mm is claimed to be dust- and drip-proof but anyone who has ever used it - I've used the SWD version - will know that it pumps a LOT of air through the body when you zoom. Now, if the sand particles are small enough, I can't see why the lens couldn't suck them in too, with the air. Honestly, with Olympus making so much noise about the weatherproofing of the E-5 and pro lenses, they should not claim your warranty is void because of sand being present inside the body.

 

[msusic]

Could be that 50-200 seals wore out and sand got in, or that you wee unlucky changing lenses.

Ultimate sealing is achieved with lenses which have no moving external parts such as 35-100, 8mm, 150 etc.
--
Cheers,
Marin

 

[olyflyer]

The only way sand is going to get in your camera is when you switch lenses while the sand is airborne. No other way except through that big gaping hole where the lens mount is.

Nope. Every lens, especially external zooms, has venting holes, as well as the camera bodies. Even if the cameras and lenses are sealed, using zooms or external focusing lenses increases the risks for sucking in dust and moisture. Olympus is no exception.

That has absolutely nothing to do with weather sealing, and it is not the camera's fault.

It has. If the sealing is worn out, old or damaged than even more dust can get inside the camera. Remember, it is just weather sealing, not water resistant, air tight sealing.

 

[olyflyer]

Mine sure aint! I just got a message from the repair center saying that sand was found internally, and my warranty is pooched. I put my E1 & E3 through MUCH MUCH worst weather and dust than I did this E5 (just shot a wedding on the beach w/ 50-200), and I've never had an issue.

I will call them and talk to them about the voided warranty, but I was expecting the E5 to hold up a little better!

end rant.

Bad luck. Not much to do, just accept the facts and pay. Can not be that expensive to get the camera cleaned, though in my opinion they should take it under warranty. It's all about the reputation and unless they can proof you have abused your gear it should be under warranty.

Regarding the 50-200, if it is old than the sealing may need to be replaced. The gaskets wear out and since the lens is a huge external zoom it actually works like a vacuum cleaner, sucking in a lot of air, and unless your gaskets are fine dust can get through the lens.

 

[olyflyer]

Ultimate sealing is achieved with lenses which have no moving external parts such as 35-100, 8mm, 150 etc.

Right. Another great advantage of internal zoom and internal focus lenses.

 

[herebefore]

Mine sure aint! I just got a message from the repair center saying that sand was found internally, and my warranty is pooched. I put my E1 & E3 through MUCH MUCH worst weather and dust than I did this E5 (just shot a wedding on the beach w/ 50-200), and I've never had an issue.

I will call them and talk to them about the voided warranty, but I was expecting the E5 to hold up a little better!

end rant.

Voiding the warranty because sand got into a dust-proof camera seems a little strange unless there was a huge quantity of sand...

Kind of like voiding the warranty on a car battery because it did what it was guaranteed not to do (die)..

--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Connecticut

In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.
Oscar Wilde

 

[Rriley]

Could be that 50-200 seals wore out and sand got in, or that you wee unlucky changing lenses.

Ultimate sealing is achieved with lenses which have no moving external parts such as 35-100, 8mm, 150 etc.

even if you accepted sand could get into the lens, and I have doubts
non of this puts sand in the body

like someone said, the only way to get sand in the body is through lens changes.

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

 

[boggis the cat]

The only way sand is going to get in your camera is when you switch lenses while the sand is airborne. No other way except through that big gaping hole where the lens mount is.

Nope. Every lens, especially external zooms, has venting holes, as well as the camera bodies.

The vents have membranes over them that prevent the ingress of dust and moisture.

Even if the cameras and lenses are sealed, using zooms or external focusing lenses increases the risks for sucking in dust and moisture. Olympus is no exception.

You won't pull in dust or moisture, let alone sand, if your body and lenses are sealed.

That has absolutely nothing to do with weather sealing, and it is not the camera's fault.

It has. If the sealing is worn out, old or damaged than even more dust can get inside the camera. Remember, it is just weather sealing, not water resistant, air tight sealing.

It is water resistant -- it is not water pressure rated. Rain can't get in, but if you immerse the equipment it may leak (and it certainly will if the immersion is significant and/or prolonged).

In this case, it sounds certain that the OP allowed sand into the camera during a lens change. It pays to be paranoid about lens changes -- you should be able to change lenses in a bag if you are in a very hostile environment.

 

[boggis the cat]

Voiding the warranty because sand got into a dust-proof camera seems a little strange unless there was a huge quantity of sand...

Kind of like voiding the warranty on a car battery because it did what it was guaranteed not to do (die)..

If you short out the battery and kill it then you will find the warranty doesn't cover that.

There is simply no way for sand to get into the body except when the lens is removed, so any sand present got in during lens changes. Olympus can't reasonably warranty lens changes, can they?

BTW, are there any lenses that would allow dust to migrate from the lens through to the body? None of my lenses have any gaps around the rear element so I think the claim that dust can get into the body via the lens is dubious.

 

[olyflyer]

The only way sand is going to get in your camera is when you switch lenses while the sand is airborne. No other way except through that big gaping hole where the lens mount is.

Nope. Every lens, especially external zooms, has venting holes, as well as the camera bodies.

The vents have membranes over them that prevent the ingress of dust and moisture.

Even if the cameras and lenses are sealed, using zooms or external focusing lenses increases the risks for sucking in dust and moisture. Olympus is no exception.

You won't pull in dust or moisture, let alone sand, if your body and lenses are sealed.

That has absolutely nothing to do with weather sealing, and it is not the camera's fault.

It has. If the sealing is worn out, old or damaged than even more dust can get inside the camera. Remember, it is just weather sealing, not water resistant, air tight sealing.

It is water resistant

No, it's not. This is totally wrong information. It is NOT water resistant. At best, weather resistant.

-- it is not water pressure rated. Rain can't get in, but if you immerse the equipment it may leak (and it certainly will if the immersion is significant and/or prolonged).

Yes, there are supposed to be gaskets, though the membranes and valves are not documented, and in any case, membranes, valves and gaskets wear out over time, so using an old lens, like his 50-200 is suspected to be, is always increasing the risks and is actually a false protection. The 50-200 is probably one of the worse lenses, since it is very heavy, also the front part, and is extending that heavy front quite a bit when you zoom. Also since the front is not rotating the strain on the gaskets is always on the same points, not distributed evenly or randomly, meaning that the gaskets will wear out sooner on some places than it would if the front would rotate. If the lens is often used (he is shooting weddings, so I suppose he uses it often) than the risks are increased even more. I suspect he had that lens ever since he bought the E-1, so it can be as old as 7-8 years now.

Anyway, the manual of E-3 was full of warning about not using the gear under humid and dusty conditions, and that doing so would void the warranty. This is the first time I hear that Oly actually refused warranty based on that. If the same warnings are also in the E-5 manual than I don't think he has a chance, and it may show a trend that Oly service got tired of all the people claiming warranty for every abuse of the camera. Too bad if a person who has not abused his gear is one of the first to be punished by this new policy.

In this case, it sounds certain that the OP allowed sand into the camera during a lens change. It pays to be paranoid about lens changes -- you should be able to change lenses in a bag if you are in a very hostile environment.

Lens changing is always risky, but I am pretty sure the OP is well aware of that, he seems to be experienced and I don't have any reason to suspect that he was careless. Of course, I was not there, I have not seen him changing lens and have no idea how he handles his gear but I assume that he knows how to change lens. Of course, you are right, it most probably has happened during a lens change, but could have happened even during use. There is no way to tell with 100% certainty.

 

[olyflyer]

Voiding the warranty because sand got into a dust-proof camera seems a little strange unless there was a huge quantity of sand...

Kind of like voiding the warranty on a car battery because it did what it was guaranteed not to do (die)..

If you short out the battery and kill it then you will find the warranty doesn't cover that.

There is simply no way for sand to get into the body except when the lens is removed, so any sand present got in during lens changes. Olympus can't reasonably warranty lens changes, can they?

BTW, are there any lenses that would allow dust to migrate from the lens through to the body? None of my lenses have any gaps around the rear element so I think the claim that dust can get into the body via the lens is dubious.

Try this:

Get a plastic bag and attach it tight to the camera end of your 50-200, using a rubber band. Now, zoom in and out the lens and watch the plastic bag, see how air is filled and sucked out. If there are vents than air can only go in one direction, but in any case, air can definitely move freely in one direction and if air can do that so can even dust, and after many pumping, so can even sand. Remember, we are not talking about rocks, but fine sand.

 

[boggis the cat]

It is water resistant

No, it's not. This is totally wrong information. It is NOT water resistant. At best, weather resistant.

You are aware that weather includes rain, right?

Like I said: water resistant.

The fact that you can rinse the body off with no problems and even get away with dunking it supports water resistance, too.

-- it is not water pressure rated. Rain can't get in, but if you immerse the equipment it may leak (and it certainly will if the immersion is significant and/or prolonged).

Yes, there are supposed to be gaskets, though the membranes and valves are not documented, and in any case, membranes, valves and gaskets wear out over time, so using an old lens, like his 50-200 is suspected to be, is always increasing the risks and is actually a false protection.

So you believe that sand can get inside the E-5 body via worn gaskets on the 50-200? The non-SWD lens must have a very different design than the SWD then, as mine has no gaps that would allow dust or sand to enter the E-5 from the lens, if such debris did manage to get inside the lens in the first place.

Anyway, the manual of E-3 was full of warning about not using the gear under humid and dusty conditions, and that doing so would void the warranty.

And yet very few people report any issues. The only one I know of is the LCD mount on the E-3 splitting and allowing moisture in.

Too bad if a person who has not abused his gear is one of the first to be punished by this new policy.

Accidentally getting sand inside the body isn't abuse. You do have to take care changing lenses.

In this case, it sounds certain that the OP allowed sand into the camera during a lens change. It pays to be paranoid about lens changes -- you should be able to change lenses in a bag if you are in a very hostile environment.

Lens changing is always risky, but I am pretty sure the OP is well aware of that, he seems to be experienced and I don't have any reason to suspect that he was careless.

Apparently the E-5 got sand in it. There is no way the lens would allow sand in, and no other known vector. Eliminate that and you really only have lens changes or some other accidental exposure to sand.

User error, basically.

Of course, I was not there, I have not seen him changing lens and have no idea how he handles his gear but I assume that he knows how to change lens.

It always surprises me how many people take a lens off, plonk it down somewhere, sit the body somewhere or let it dangle on the neck strap, hunt for the new lens, then leisurely attach it.

Of course, you are right, it most probably has happened during a lens change, but could have happened even during use. There is no way to tell with 100% certainty.

Perhaps his E-5 has big holes in it from micro-meteorite impacts -- I guess it's possible , right?

On this side of improbability we have an E-5 that is dust and water resistant (i.e. does not let does and water in under normal atmospheric conditions for humans) and by virtue of dust resistance is also sand resistant.

 

[boggis the cat]

There is simply no way for sand to get into the body except when the lens is removed, so any sand present got in during lens changes. Olympus can't reasonably warranty lens changes, can they?

BTW, are there any lenses that would allow dust to migrate from the lens through to the body? None of my lenses have any gaps around the rear element so I think the claim that dust can get into the body via the lens is dubious.

Try this:

Get a plastic bag and attach it tight to the camera end of your 50-200, using a rubber band. Now, zoom in and out the lens and watch the plastic bag, see how air is filled and sucked out. If there are vents than air can only go in one direction, but in any case, air can definitely move freely in one direction and if air can do that so can even dust, and after many pumping, so can even sand. Remember, we are not talking about rocks, but fine sand.

Air is a bit "finer" than most dust, I think you'll find. Then "fine sand" is a bit further along the size scale. If the seals are completely shot then you could get an ingress of any small airborne particles, in theory -- but they'd have to be extremely compromised to allow large particles in. (Most dust found inside lenses is produced within the lens by mechanical wear.)

How the dust/sand manages to leap through the rear lens element to infest the E-5 body is left unexplained, even if you've managed to completely clog up the lens with dust/sand/very small rocks etc. Have a look at the rear of a lens -- I can't find any of mine that have any visible gaps.

I'm pretty sure that my Canon lenses don't have big holes in them, either, though I haven't checked. (Do Nikon make air-cooled lenses with big ventilation slots or something?)

 

[Rriley]

For this notion to be true, sand must first enter the lens, then travel from that entry point along the lens tube beyond all the lens elements through the back of the lens and into the camera.

Considering that each lens element is adhered to black backing at its edges and within its mount, and each group adhered into its element group. There is no physical pathway from the outside of the lens, journeying along the inside of the lens and into the camera, whereby 'sand' can be deposited into the camera.

The message is basically nothing but pure unadulterated FUD



--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended

 

[light_bulb]

Well, dust is not the same as sand to begin with. Sand can be expected to be bigger in diameter than dust.

If sand was found in the camera it is rather unlikely that it has entered into it through the ZD 50-200. Just take a look at the rear part of the 50-200 and be aware of the sealings inside the lens.

As was mentioned, sand entering into the camera during lens change cannot be under warranty. It is the users obligation to prevent that from happening. Under bad conditions (e.g. sand storm) it may be no goo idea to change lenses at all or you will need to do that in a protected environment like a plastic bag, car, room or what have you. Generally, it is good to look for a proper place for lens change that allows you to release the lens caps beforehand at best on a table or similar surface and keeps the time the camera remains open as short as possible.

I have both the E-3 and E-5 and construction-wise there are slight differences but none that may increase the likelyhood of sand entering into the camera.

While I am contemplating to sell my E-3, I am giving it a detailed check-up. Even though it has more than 50k shutter actuations and has seen plenty of lens changes outdoors, there is no noticeable dust in the viewfinder.

Mine sure aint! I just got a message from the repair center saying that sand was found internally, and my warranty is pooched. I put my E1 & E3 through MUCH MUCH worst weather and dust than I did this E5 (just shot a wedding on the beach w/ 50-200), and I've never had an issue.

I will call them and talk to them about the voided warranty, but I was expecting the E5 to hold up a little better!

end rant.

--
http://home.fotocommunity.de/andreaspastowski

 

[light_bulb]

The only thing your rant can result in, is to invite 'olyflyer' to unload his mostly unfounded speculation, the only purpose of which seems to be to undermine the brand reputation of Olympus. I do not kow for what reason he does that but every single word from him needs to be evaluated keeping that in mind. There is simply too much bias in what he writes to rely on it without further checks.

The E-5 has even been drowned in the water of Blue Lagoon on Iceland:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZwAQ4WHbuM

However Olympus does not recommend that and it is not under warranty.

Mine sure aint! I just got a message from the repair center saying that sand was found internally, and my warranty is pooched. I put my E1 & E3 through MUCH MUCH worst weather and dust than I did this E5 (just shot a wedding on the beach w/ 50-200), and I've never had an issue.

I will call them and talk to them about the voided warranty, but I was expecting the E5 to hold up a little better!

end rant.

--
http://home.fotocommunity.de/andreaspastowski