Jump to content

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

Patrick FR

By Patrick FR
in Fuji X-T1 / Fuji X-T10

 Share

Recommended Posts

CRAusmus Experienced

CRAusmus

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
EHS Newbie

EHS

Posted
Posted

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sunglass Apprentice

Sunglass

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rod McD Newbie

Rod McD

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Trenton Talbot Rising Star

Trenton Talbot

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
JLing Contributor

JLing

Posted
Posted

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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Trenton Talbot Rising Star

Trenton Talbot

Posted
Posted

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  :D

 

 

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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Marc G. Collaborator

Marc G.

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • thelostkiwi
      Looking for Full Frame lenses to adapt to GFX

      By thelostkiwi · Posted

      I also use a Nikon to GFX Fringer and it works very well.  24mm f/1.8 vignettes so best used on 35mm mode.  50mm f/1.8 covers the entire frame very well with no issues and is a superb little lens. 105mm Sigma vignettes slightly but is perfectly usable. 300 f/4 likewise the 105.  I have a 70-200 f/20+.8 incoming to test so will report back but I'm expecting a little vignetting.  Even in 35mm mode the image is still 60MP and if you're prepared to manually crop and correct you can get 80-90 MP images.  I also have a C/Y to GFX adapter.  The 24mm Sigma Superwide vignettes strongly. Ditto 28-80 Zeiss Sonnar. 80-200 f/4 Sonnar is perfectly usable. All work fine as 35mm mode lenses.  I also have an M42 adapter which I tried with the Carl Zeiss Jena 135mm f/3.5 with good results. 
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Thank you. I will research it.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Ahh, the infamous brick wall photos… 😀 According to internet lore, if the dng converter does not properly apply the corrections, you can have it apply custom profiles that should work for you. How to do that is waaaaaay outside of this comment’s scope, but there are plenty of sites listed in the search engines that step you through the processes. Best wishes.
    • Trevor R
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By Trevor R · Posted

      Jerry Thank you very much. That is extremely helpful. It seems that the camera and the lens have the latest firmware update, so it appears that the corrections should be applied automatically. The lens arrived this afternoon and I took some quick test shots, in which the correct lens information appeared in the EXIF files, so that sounds good. I used Adobe DNG converter to convert the Raw (RAF) files, and then opened the DNG files and saved them in PSD format. However, with a beautiful, clear, cloudless blue sky, there were no lines near the edges to check if distortion had been corrected. Another day I plan to photograph a brick wall. Thank you for your help.
    • jerryy
      Image correction with GF20-35

      By jerryy · Posted

      Typically you need to make sure the lens is compatible with the camera, i.e. check the lens compatibility charts for your camera, then make sure the respective firmwares are updated so older issues are resolved. After that, each lens has a manufacturer’s profile which will be embedded into the raw file meta data for the images captured using that lens. From there, it is up to the raw conversion software to apply the lens correction to the image. Different converters do that differently, some automatically, some only if a setting is turned on. For in-camera jpegs, the on-board converter does the corrections automatically, assuming the camera recognizes the lens, it applies a generic profile otherwise. I do not know if that can be turned off or not.
×
×
  • Create New...