Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30

Thread: Weather-proof Paradox

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    43

    Default Weather-proof Paradox

    A body such as dynax 9, eos 3, 1x or f5 may be weather proof to a certain industrial IP protection,
    but the lens?
    if the lens is not as weather proof as the body, what's the point? shooting in the drizzle or on the surf will equally spoil your priced equipment....
    ... and water may get in from the lens right in to the shtter!

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default Re: Weather-proof Paradox

    Originally posted by siow gongzi
    A body such as dynax 9, eos 3, 1x or f5 may be weather proof to a certain industrial IP protection,
    but the lens?
    if the lens is not as weather proof as the body, what's the point? shooting in the drizzle or on the surf will equally spoil your priced equipment....
    ... and water may get in from the lens right in to the shtter!
    The bodies like those you mentioned are indeed weatherproof (of coz, don't dunk it in water). When used with a pro lens like Canon's EF L series, or the Nikon AFS (except AFS-G) lenses, they are weatherproof as well. These lenses have seals which prevent water from getting in. I've seen a photographer walking in the drizzle with a F5 + AFS 17-35. All he needs later is to wipe away the surface water droplets.

    Regards
    CK

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    43

    Default

    i think the combination of both WP body and WP lens suits mainly photo- and sports- journalist.
    snappers buying the WP bodies hoping to be able to shoot in the rain have to invest in those WP lenses which could easily cost more than the body itself.
    moral of the story:
    why don't camera makers produce 2 versions of the pro cameras, one with weather proof and one without, which the latter would definitely be cheaper due to the reduction in WP components hence benefits most of us who don't always shoot in the rain.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by siow gongzi
    i think the combination of both WP body and WP lens suits mainly photo- and sports- journalist.
    snappers buying the WP bodies hoping to be able to shoot in the rain have to invest in those WP lenses which could easily cost more than the body itself.
    moral of the story:
    why don't camera makers produce 2 versions of the pro cameras, one with weather proof and one without, which the latter would definitely be cheaper due to the reduction in WP components hence benefits most of us who don't always shoot in the rain.
    All pro bodies are WP by default. No point making a pro body non WP, might as well buy the consumer ones then (e.g. Canon EOS 30, Nikon F80, etc)

    Regards
    CK

  5. #5

    Default

    Originally posted by siow gongzi
    i think the combination of both WP body and WP lens suits mainly photo- and sports- journalist.
    snappers buying the WP bodies hoping to be able to shoot in the rain have to invest in those WP lenses which could easily cost more than the body itself.
    moral of the story:
    why don't camera makers produce 2 versions of the pro cameras, one with weather proof and one without, which the latter would definitely be cheaper due to the reduction in WP components hence benefits most of us who don't always shoot in the rain.
    thats a very good suggestion, while the manufacturers are at it, they can make a version that is just the polycarbonate body shell (maybe with lead weights inside to make it feel sturdy) and sell it to camera collectors who never shoot in the rain (or anywhere else for that matter...)


  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by erwinx


    thats a very good suggestion, while the manufacturers are at it, they can make a version that is just the polycarbonate body shell (maybe with lead weights inside to make it feel sturdy) and sell it to camera collectors who never shoot in the rain (or anywhere else for that matter...)

    Actually, while they are at it, might as well make all those collector edition Leicas and Contaxes nonfunctional as well, since they are never bought to shoot anyway. I've even read of buyers of such items running the item through Xray to confirm that the camera is there, shrink wrapped in the velvet box. They won't even open it!

    Regards
    CK

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    43

    Default

    All pro bodies are WP by default. No point making a pro body non WP, might as well buy the consumer ones then (e.g. Canon EOS 30, Nikon F80, etc)

    Regards
    CK [/B]
    Surely there are points in making a variant of the pro bodies. And i don't believe the WP feature of pro body is made by "default".
    Being "default" means those pros are always to be used in the moisture. But we all know, most of ppl don't choose to shoot uder that environment.
    If camera being able to shoot in the moisture means pro, the weather proof versions of minolta and kodak's point-n-shoot are also "pro".

    Although a non-weather proof version of EOS 1V may be less "pro", a lot of us will get to enjoy the rest of the features and build at a lower price.

  8. #8
    Member Knighthunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Pigeon Hole in Mandalay
    Posts
    958

    Default

    Originally posted by siow gongzi

    Although a non-weather proof version of EOS 1V may be less "pro", a lot of us will get to enjoy the rest of the features and build at a lower price.
    If you want to get cheaper version of EOS 1V then you can get EOS 3. The major difference bettwen EOS 3 and EOS 1V is the weather profing gaskets. EOS 1V evan has gasket in the lens mount to prevent water entering the lens mount when combined with newest EF lens (limited to 300 F2.8 to 600 f4 with IS version) in the drenching rain and minus ECF system. I saw the launching EOS 1V video at the Canon Australia Service Center about three years ago when I am serving my EOS 3 to correct the under exposuure problem.
    Not sure about Nikon F5, even now I already switched system to Nikon side.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by siow gongzi


    Surely there are points in making a variant of the pro bodies. And i don't believe the WP feature of pro body is made by "default".
    Being "default" means those pros are always to be used in the moisture. But we all know, most of ppl don't choose to shoot uder that environment. If camera being able to shoot in the moisture means pro, the weather proof versions of minolta and kodak's point-n-shoot are also "pro".

    Although a non-weather proof version of EOS 1V may be less "pro", a lot of us will get to enjoy the rest of the features and build at a lower price.
    It doesn't matter whether pros shoot under such environments, but all pro cameras are designed to be weatherproof. They make consumer versions for a reason.

    Sure, Pros don't necessarily have to shoot in those adverse conditions, but they do shoot in worse situations than the most of us do (not necessarily in the rain, etc). Their cameras also take up a lot of abuse, and must be up to it. If you've seen a camera used by a real pro, you will know what I mean.

    There are also plenty of cases where pro's have no choice but to shoot in crap weather, eg: sports and other one off events, where the's no choice about doing a reshoot at a later date.

    Besides just water, the seals also protect dust, sand, etc from getting into the buttons and switches and messing up the contacts.

    Pro cameras and bodies are actually designed for professional use, not for the rest of us. Just that most lust after them. Why do you need a non-weatherproof 1V? Can't a EOS 30 or 3 do as well?

    Regards
    CK

  10. #10
    Member Knighthunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Pigeon Hole in Mandalay
    Posts
    958

    Default

    I think Top of The Line mind complexity is exist in most of us. If you have extra $$$ to dispose having top of the line equipment it's priviledge, but if not consumer class equipment won't prohibit you to get good picture.
    Top of the line equipment can't make a good pictures without good photographer behind it.
    Just my another rambling at blue Sunday night.......

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by Knighthunter
    I think Top of The Line mind complexity is exist in most of us. If you have extra $$$ to dispose having top of the line equipment it's priviledge, but if not consumer class equipment won't prohibit you to get good picture.
    Top of the line equipment can't make a good pictures without good photographer behind it.
    Just my another rambling at blue Sunday night.......
    You are very right. Many people are just lusting after pro equipment when they don't really need it. Like how many people really need a F5 or a 1V? Isn't the F100 and EOS 3 sufficient? Or even F80 and EOS 30.

    Regards
    CK

  12. #12

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang


    It doesn't matter whether pros shoot under such environments, but all pro cameras are designed to be weatherproof. They make consumer versions for a reason.

    Pros don't have to shoot in those adverse conditions, but they do shoot in worse situations than the most of us do (not necessarily in the rain, etc). Their cameras also take up a lot of abuse, and must be up to it. If you've seen a camera used by a real pro, you will know what I mean.

    Pro cameras and bodies are actually designed for professional use, not for the rest of us. Just that most lust after them. Why do you need a non-weatherproof 1V? Can't a EOS 30 or 3 do as well?

    Regards
    CK

    Exactly, what features does the original poster want that are found in an EOS-1 but not found on an EOS-3, considering the fact that we are not talking about pros?

  13. #13
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,651

    Default

    Like what others have said, WP comes with the package for pro bodies. WP is the SIGNATURE of a pro body. True enough, not all photographers shoot in adverse conditions most of the time but that doesn't means manufacturers have to make different bodies to cater for every situation. God knows what people will come out with next to warrant a new version of the same camera. Can you imagine, EOS 1V (Tropical version), EOS 1V (Artic version), EOS 1V (Sahara version), etc. Be real, its not going to happen.

    The arguement about having cheaper pro bodies without WP is like saying you have an appetite for steak but can only afford hamburgers. So you start shaving off the soup, the entree, the salad, etc. Do you think the restaurant will obliged? I don't think so.

    If you think you don't need the WP of the camera, then what makes you think you need the functions of a pro camera that differentiates it from a consumer or prosumer body?

  14. #14
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,651

    Default

    Originally posted by erwinx



    Exactly, what features does the original poster want that are found in an EOS-1 but not found on an EOS-3, considering the fact that we are not talking about pros?
    Then what's the problem? Just get the EOS 3 if budget doesn't allow for the 1V or if you don't need the additional WP.

  15. #15
    Member Knighthunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Pigeon Hole in Mandalay
    Posts
    958

    Default

    Pro photographers take the picture in the harsh condition such as rain/dust /storm/etc because that's the way they make living......

    How many people hobbiest photographer prepared to bring their top if the line equipment for picture taking under rain although it has weather proofing?

  16. #16
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,651

    Default

    Originally posted by Knighthunter
    Pro photographers take the picture in the harsh condition such as rain/dust /storm/etc because that's the way they make living......

    How many people hobbiest photographer prepared to bring their top if the line equipment for picture taking under rain although it has weather proofing?
    I do and have done it but that's besides the point.

    Point is, its unrealistic to expect manufacturers to make different versions of the same body, doing away with somethings you don't need, hoping that it will be within reach then. This is especially so when the next camera in line, which costs lesser and can do the job as well.

    I take that as a lust for the greatest as usual, even though you know you don't need the greatest.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    43

    Default

    I totally agree on the stand of having to buy just what one needs, not wants. It equates with the average-earner wanting to own a fancy PDA phone while a decent sub $400 mobile serves the daily purpose well. Of course we can't stop a richman's lad from buying a ericsson P800 while his main concern shall be doing his tuturial.

    I am not sure what other functionality a WP pro cam offers over its next grade non-WP sibling. I believe it takes more than the WP feature to make a camera professional. There must be other things which are unique. Those features could be useful to a serious photographer too.

    I'm not suggesting makers to make a pro cam for diffrent sitation. I'm simply proposing to see how a non-wp variant is welcome.

    Imagine tomorrow there is this full-featured $2400 dynax 9 and a non-WP dynax 9 costing $500 less displayed side by side on the shelf, which one will be sold faster and more popular?

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Some of the pre-requisites of a pro body:

    1. Weather Sealed (VERY important)
    2. Rugged.
    3. Good handling and balance, good weight.
    4. Good performance

    Among several others.

    Seriously, I don't think anyone needs a non-WP 1V or F5. Just go one step lower and get a EOS 3/F100. Performance isn't a lot worse.

    Regards
    CK

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default

    CK, question. Where did you get the theory that AF-S G lenses are not weather proof?

    The new 70-200 AF-S G is.

    Which probably will start me on a tangent about how all this "classing" of professional and non-professional lenses into whether they are AF-S or not, L or not, and G or not, is really a funny one.

    Secondly, and more relevant to the thread, cameras might be weatherproof in name, they are not necessarily weatherproof all the time in practice.

    And here's the good one, Nikon UK does not warranty corrosion damage from water. Which is very curious considering all the marketing they do about weather proofing their cameras.

    Also I have seen numerous Canon bodies afflicted by rain problems. That's why when it rains, we all go crazy and start taking extensive precautions to keep out gear dry.

    I suppose if you don't know this already, then you really don't need to know and really don't need weatherproofing in which case.

    As to the original post. Yes there's no point if the body is weatherproof and the lens is not. But if you buy a lens in the same class as your pro-body, then you will be getting a weatherproof lens, which renders this entire discussion moot.

    If you are going to buy an expensive camera and pair it with a cheap lens, then weatherproofing is the least of your worries.

  20. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by Jed
    CK, question. Where did you get the theory that AF-S G lenses are not weather proof?

    The new 70-200 AF-S G is.

    Oh man, you got me there. My bad. Was only thinking of the AFS 24-85G.

    Regards
    CK

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •