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

    • jerryy
      Fungus

      By jerryy · Posted

      A fungus in the forest.

      Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

      Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

      (p.s. Open Topic.)  
    • Don Barar
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By Don Barar · Posted

      The backslashes you are referring are just symbols denoting path.  Once you import into these LUTS into Davinci Resolve those backslashes are removed by default and you only see is the true file name which has no backslashes.  Convince yourself of this by opening the LUT folder from the Davinci Resolve Project Settings.  Do you see any backslashes in those LUT names? Of course not.  The only name you see is the one that has the underscores and the periods. These LUTS work as designed without having to change any path names.  However, they need to be set up properly through CSTs and by what is supported in Davinci Resolve.  Hence, the FLog2C film simulation LUTS cannot be used because Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut color space and the FLog2C gamut. Alternatively, Davinci Resolve does support Flog2 film simulation LUTS because the color space for FLog2 is Rec 2020 and there is an FLog2 gamut. If all you are doing is changing the path names then you are not getting the correct results.
    • PoorAlchemist
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By PoorAlchemist · Posted

      I found the reddit topic i refere to :  https://www.reddit.com/r/davinciresolve/comments/1pc3f1e/cant_apply_new_fujifilm_gfx_55_lut/ "Update for y'all, It's just like what @ExpBalSat said, it's because of the backslashes in the names break them. I changed the file name and it works now. "   For me it was the solution. Realy annoying if it doesn’t work for you 😕  
    • Don Barar
      LUT doesn't works on resolve

      By Don Barar · Posted

      Here is the solution to using the Eterna 55 file simulation LUTs in Davinci Resolve.   In general, do not use the FLog2C to film simulation LUTs as they are not supported by Davinci Resolve for two reasons: 1) Davinci Resolve does not support Fuji Gamut Color Space and 2) Davinci Resolve does not support FLog2C gamma.  Instead, use Flog2 which is supported by Davinci Resolve.  Here is an example.  Let's say that you want to use Classic Chrome simulation.  Do the following: Complete your color grade and use a CST to get to Rec 709. Add a node.  Use a CST to convert from Rec 709 to FLog2.  Output Color space is Rec 2020 and Outout Gamut is FLog2. Add a node.  Apply the FLog2 to Classic Chrome LUT Create a combination node from node in steps 2 and 3. Apply a Key to the combination node and adjust the Key Output Gain to get the amount of the combination node that you want applied. So that you do not have to do this over and over again, generate a LUT for the combination node.  Remember to turn off all other nodes before generating the LUT. Hope this helps others. Don  
    • crazyfields
      Please save me from insanity 23mm f2 vs F1.4r

      By crazyfields · Posted

      Thanks for the insights. I think it's really hard to make a decision without having the two side by side! 
×
×
  • Create New...