X-T1/X-T10 and the Weather Sealing... just a Gimmick or a Must Have Feature?

[CRAusmus]

Big Head Taco pours a bottle of water over the X-T1 and then shoots with it.  If I remember correctly he had the 18-135 on it.  I think it's important.  The sealing isn't just for water.

[EHS]

If it works, it is definitely not a gimmick. 

 

As somebody who is switching from SLR to mirrorless for the weight savings on backcountry excursions, weather sealing is huge. I've killed multiple canon lenses and one body (thankfully still under warranty) from rough treatment in the outdoors, and missed a lot of shots because I didn't want to pull my camera out of my bag in the rain. 

 

My dream X Pro2 is weather sealed, has in-body stabilization, and backside illumination. That combination would be killer, for me; every shot I want to get but don't is because of wet weather or low light. A bigger sensor would be great, too, but it's not worth having a heavier or less-durable body for me. I'm looking at you, Sony. 

[JLing]

Newbie; Great video...but, it would have been nice to see the camera function after the dipping...???

The owner of the video commented on YouTube it stil worked perfectly!

[Sunglass]

I bought my first camera in 1986. None of the many cameras that followed her were weatherproof. I have taken pictures in three continents under the most varied weather conditions, and none of my cameras have ever stopped working because of rain, snow, freeze, or sand. If photographers have coped sans weatherproof since 1839, why should it become a "must-have" feature now? Not many photogs really need that feature, and there are all kinds of camera covers for those who need them.

[citral]

Hmm, in my youth nobody wanted to take their Rollei at the beach, and a bit of rain was not as dramatic for mechanical things as it is for electronics (oxidation works like a time bomb on circuits)

[Hrlm]

Hi Patrick, what is ASP-X (25-27MP)?

[Rod McD]

I wouldn't buy an unsealed camera after the experience of losing two to water damage and a repair to sand grain entry to a lens.  Cameras are precision optical/electronic devices that are used outdoors and they're susceptible to damage by water and dust.  It doesn't take a lot of water, especially salt water, to ruin them.  They don't have to get flooded - a few drops under the top plate dials is enough to cause electronic malfunction and permanent damage.  It doesn't cost a lot to design and build sealing in from the outset.  I don't think there is any excuse for not sealing premium bodies and lenses.  It doesn't matter that some owners may not take advantage of the sealing.  For others, it's essential.

[Trenton Talbot]

You can start by asking: weather what, exactly? Freezing rain? Tsunami? Sandstorm? Tornado?…

 

By "weather sealing" manufacturers usually mean "more or less protected against a downpour, but absolutely no guarantee" – amazingly similar to "water resistant" watches. So most users perceive "weather sealing" as "water resistant" without thinking twice. And that's exactly what makes "weather sealing" a gimmick: no one ever bothered to rate a camera or lens using widely recognized standards such as IPX. Not even an IPX-1 (10 minutes of protection from dripping water, single direction). So basically when you choose a "weather resistant" something, you vote with your hard earned money for the continual existence of a salesy BS.

 

From where I'm standing, "weather sealing" is no more effective than a trash bag and a few pieces of gaff tape.

[JLing]

You can start by asking: weather what, exactly? Freezing rain? Tsunami? Sandstorm? Tornado?…

 

By "weather sealing" manufacturers usually mean "more or less protected against a downpour, but absolutely no guarantee" – amazingly similar to "water resistant" watches. So most users perceive "weather sealing" as "water resistant" without thinking twice. And that's exactly what makes "weather sealing" a gimmick: no one ever bothered to rate a camera or lens using widely recognized standards such as IPX. Not even an IPX-1 (10 minutes of protection from dripping water, single direction). So basically when you choose a "weather resistant" something, you vote with your hard earned money for the continual existence of a salesy BS.

 

From where I'm standing, "weather sealing" is no more effective than a trash bag and a few pieces of gaff tape.

Hi, Trenton I always enjoy your comments and opinions did you see the link I posted earlier in this topic? Definitely not a gimmick I would say. The owner of the vid claimed it worked without a problem afterwards.

[Trenton Talbot]

Hi, Trenton I always enjoy your comments and opinions did you see the link I posted earlier in this topic? Definitely not a gimmick I would say. The owner of the vid claimed it worked without a problem afterwards.

 

There'll always be some anecdotal evidence^* to support both sides of the "weather sealing" dichotomy. Actually, that applies to any gimmick 

 

 

^* It is best known as a "Person Who" fallacy. Not to be confused with Doctor Who  

 

[Marc G.]

I've used my X-T1 under drizzle and light rain for hours and it worked and works flawlessly. Even the 10-24 survived a tropical rainstorm unprotected for 15 minutes.

 

After those partly involuntary "tests" I completely trust the X-T1 to be usable under any circumstances that happen to come upon me.

 

Certainly NOT a gimmick to me.

 

That said, I also used my Leica M9 under similar circumstances and it survived. That camera is not specified as being weather sealed.