Originally posted by aslyfox I think you have to remember the years that photographers managed to take great photos with no more weather protection than basically a bag type cover
[ which are still readily available if you want to buy one ]
Trudat. But you know.. don't you find it a missed opportunity to being manufacturing WR cameras but skipping out on so many teeny tiny primes that surely wouldn't overly suffer in compactness with a wee bit of WRing? Then we can do away with the bag altogether!
Originally posted by clackers No, that's a cop out, Fogel, you just specify the rating is for that body with a selected lens.
All standards have specified conditions and assumptions, take fuel economy of cars or battery lives for cameras, as examples, it doesn't stop standards being drafted, implemented, and used by decision makers.
Yeah, I don't get how giving a product a rating somehow opens them liable to warranty. I mean... someone can just lie saying an IPX rated phone was just in the rain a little when really fell down the toilet.
If we had rear lens caps that gave the same kinda seal as what the lens would have on the body, then we could submit the lens to some water tolerance tests and then get an idea of where we're at. Sensible shooters (the majority of us) just would like to know where we really stand.
Originally posted by Sandy Hancock It's not bizarre at all. If you have a weather sealed lens/camera combination, the last thing you want to do in the field is swap lenses to change the angle of view. A zoom makes much more sense.
Mind you, I'm all for improving the range of weather sealed primes. Bring on the DFA*85, 35, and hopefully 24 in the not-too-distant future!
Yeah I thought about this after I posted it, indeed a zoom makes sense. Last time I did some rain shooting I was switching lenses under an umbrella fastened to my tripod, it's not ideal. But you know... some people do kinda leave the house with just one prime, if it's a versatile lens (such as the HD DA 35/2.8 Macro) then that's just screaming for some WR treatment. In fact I'm selling mine purely because it is not WR otherwise I'd keep it. It's possibly the best walkaround prime I've had the pleasure to use thus far (it's just that I don't do that kinda stuff much where I leave the house with just one camera and lens).
Originally posted by ThorSanchez I concur. Sure, you're not going to be able to switch out your primes often in a downpour. But Pentax' (implied?) marketing is "Look at all these tiny little jewels of lenses that go with a small weather-sealed body like the KP. Perfect for carrying around all day on a hike." But none of those little jewels are WR or AW, so just don't go out if it might rain. Or you're too near the beach. Or when it's sandy or dusty. Or... maybe just stay inside to be safe, so they're great for long walks through malls or Zeppelin hangers or domed stadiums.
I just bought a 21mm limited, and it seems very good. But if it had been weather-sealed that could have been a lens that stays glued to the body for travel.
Yep. I had the HD DA 15 and 21 and the 35 Macro but have sold them all to be replaced with the HD DA 20-40 purely because of WR. The bag argument just doesn't wash that well with me, I just want to grab my camera and go out in the rain without the prep work and all that stuff.
Originally posted by Fogel70 Then removing the lens from the camera would void the warranty.
If IPX rating is put on cameras and lenses they must withstand the testing as separate products.
You can't put IPX rating on a product with the condition that it is used together with another product. Then you can say that all products have highest possible IPX rating, you just need to put them is a dust/water tight box.
IP Code - Wikipedia Originally posted by Fogel70 Olympus actually have stated IPX rating on some of their ILC. But they could only specify it as "better than IPX1", even on a camera like OM-D E-M1X.
IPX1 is the lowest possible rating you can put on a product (except not protected at all). No rating against dust and lowest protection against water.
"IPX1 Dripping water
Dripping water (vertically falling drops) shall have no harmful effect. Test duration: 10 minutes, equivalent to 1 mm rainfall per minute."
With best sealed lenses on Olympus cameras the sealing is much better than that, so it is just not very meaningful to specify the IPX rating on this type of product.
I just don't understand how you can't get a WR body cap for the camera, put it through its paces, then do the same with a lens (with a WR rear cap), and then rate both products and then when connected use the weakest IPX rating (whatever that element might be) as a sensible guideline.
Like from a warranty issue surely people bending the truth anyway, "oh I only took it out in a light bit of rain for 5mins" when really they dropped it in the bath. I mean can't a company give a rating but then stipulate that due to the nature of ICL that warranty issues surrounding water damage cannot be actioned on and that the IPX rating is only a guideline for sensible safe use? I just don't get the connection between offering a rating to let the user know exactly where they stand on a product vs warranty issues.
Originally posted by angerdan Ah yes, thanks. I wasn't looking past 100mm in my recent searches. I guess those wildlife prime users get looked after a bit, which makes sense.
Originally posted by Alex645 All good points here. One other wrinkle to consider is that primes are inherently less prone to having water or dust entering the lens due to less moving parts/simpler design. The key part for the prime is having that silicone o-ring gasket on the rear lens mount.
But even without that, it is easy enough to jury-rig an inverted plastic bag with a hole for the front of the lens to poke thru and another for the finder. A filter and a lens hood also add more protection in the worst conditions.
Yeah I might ask my plumber mate for some advice with my FA Ltd' primes. I wonder if there can be a kinda 'O' ring that could be pushed to seal the join between the lens and camera body, and then do the beer cosy trick around the main body (and use a different longer hood) to give some kinda additional protection. Not the kind that lets you shoot in decent rain, but the kind that wouldn't panic you for some light shower shots (especially if inbetween shots you're not exposing the camera but stowing away).
I guess what I'm saying is there's shooting in rain and then there's shooting in rain. I have a HD DA 20-40 en-route but I am really a little unsure of how far to push it's WR capabilities. Light showers fine, mist fog, fine, medium rain ok, downpour? No I'm guessing.