Brace for my third world tough environment cope thread >there's IP-rated gaming mice>there's $200 chineseium smartphones with IP69K ratingsIt seems like it's a fully reasonable thing to want to know just how well the stuff you want to buy holds up against the elements.. especially professional cameras >Go to purchase $6000 "pro body camera">Canon"Dude, please trust us! The Canon EOS R1 is weather sealed! Because our marketing division said so! We don't have any proof of this, or any testing, but please trust us bro look at our brochure look at our website bro it's weather sealed bro please bro">Nikon"broooo it's the Nikon Z9 bro we sealed it just like our D6 bro remember DSLRs??? Remember how tough those were???? Yeah buddy you know you can trust us come one just spend $7000 on this camera we are the wildlife brand!">SonyThey don't even try. DPReview turned a hose on the alpha 7 III and it died because there were literally no rubber seals in the battery compartment.Why do people do this? Do people actually spend tens of thousands of dollars on cameras/lenses that can't prove resistance beyond marketing teams telling you so? Why isn't the industry being forced to back up their claims?>Le rainbag memeUseless against dust & sand, and do you genuinely expect me to carry around several rainbags for different lenses, or make my own from a grocery bag and take it around with me? Its cumbersome, and its hassle.>Le "just don't take a picture! I wouldn't push my camera that hard!"Sounds like cope to me, works if you consider photography or videography a hobby and not your purpose in life, I want to take my camera to warzone, etc., anything for the picture, but I sure want my camera to survive if I do.Leica makes IP54 rated cameras.OM System makes IP53 rated cameras & lenses.Why don't more companies do so? It's not expensive to get certification, I just want camera manufacturers to be honest & upfront about how far we can push our cameras.
>>4477274>Why don't more companies do so?
>>4477277You've a fair point, in the meantime I'll try to vote with my wallet, but damn, is it hard, Leica exists to maximise profit margins and the micro four thirds companies know they've got a niche of the camera market held by the balls so they don't skimp on the MSRP either..
>>4477274Nigga just buy a nikonos if you have such an issue with it
>>4477291Nice meme.Ironically, not even the Nikonos is IP-rated
>>4477274IP rating is still just marketingLack of IP rating isn't preventing people from using other models in harsh conditions and being just fineDo you care about another thing to add to the spec sheet or do you care about how a camera actually performs in real life?I see plenty of different models being used in actual warzone and being fineWhat bodies do you use now and what warzone do you frequent?
>>4477304>IP rating is still just marketingCommon misconception, it's not, it's a legitimate standard set by the International Electrotechnical Commission which engineers and technicians use in industrial applications, consoomers think it's just another number>Do you care about another thing to add to the spec sheet or do you care about how a camera actually performs in real life?Exactly, how the fuck is the buyer supposed to know how it performs in real life if there's no information about how it performs in real life? You're putting your trust in marketing teams to tell you it'd perform well in real life.
>>4477309This is why normies just use their phones. >Sorry honey my $5000 camera might not survive a light splash in the rain>What do you mean you don't like it when I bring a garbage bag to cover the camera
>>4477311I've had to resort to using a Sony Xperia 1 III as an outdoors photography tool instead of a camera.I wish I could keep on doing this but I can't afford to drop $1300 on every new Xperia to replace the old one when it inevitably breaks. (I've gone through too many USB-C connectors at this point)
>>4477309>t's a legitimate standard set by the InternationThat's still just marketing at the end of the dayBattery life is also a standard, but has no relationship to actual real life shooting >how the fuck is the buyer supposed to know how it performs in real life if there's no information about how it performs in real lifeIf you are too retarded to figure out if a body will meet your needs, adding an IP rating isn't going to change thatAlso, thank you for confirming you are indeed a nophotoJust another "invent a reason to complain" anon
>>4477324>Battery life is also a standard, but has no relationship to actual real life shootingCIPA is never wrong, a camera with a higher CIPA rating will always last longer in every scenario.>If you are too retarded to figure out if a body will meet your needs, adding an IP rating isn't going to change thatNothingburger ad hominem statement >Also, thank you for confirming you are indeed a nophotoJust another "invent a reason to complain" anonuse ur tripcode cANON
>>4477330False flagging faggot, you think I'm the type to bash CIPA battery ratings? Leave that to coping mirrorlesscucks.
>>4477324>complains about nophoto>is also a nophotoBasically:>Hurr durr you DIDNT POST A PHOTO to go with your argument therefore you LOSE NIGGERChrist, fuck off. You're exhausting.CIPA battrey life typically gets the shots you'll take wrong (because lots of shit goes into power usage), but it's literally never wrong when comparing cameras between each other, which is the WHOLE POINT anon was talking about set standards. Yeah IP ratings are marketing in that they let the manufacturer slap a nice sticker on it. Woo. But if anon is looking to buy a camera and one is marketed as IP54 and another at IP67, then you can still safely compare that the second camera is better for that kind of stuff even if it probably still isn't immersion proof for 30 minutes.>>4477331>false flaggedIf you didn't make such broad, retarded statements on a regular basis you wouldn't be the first anon everyone thinks of otb.Shame you got crossfired here though.
>>4477332I asked specifically which cameras you used, and you didn't answer lolYou speak like someone that doesn't own a camera so I wanted to know, not my fault you don't readAlso, I post photos all the time lol>it's literally never wrong when comparing cameras between each otherIt's only good for comparing that specific CIPA rating, it doesn't hold up for actually comparing battery life on real world usage
>>4477331Sorry, force of habit>>4477334>I asked specifically which cameras you used, and you didn't answer lolYou got the wrong guy, I didn't answer this question because it's entirely meaningless, its bait and I'm not falling for it, which camera I use or which warzone I go to makes absolutely no difference to the subject at hand, if I mention the brand I use it's gonna immediately be "WeLl oF CouRSe YoU'rE aN X-tArd", do you think I'm new to this? Try something else besides ad hominem>It's only good for comparing that specific CIPA rating, it doesn't hold up for actually comparing battery life on real world usageRead again.Please."CIPA battrey life typically gets the shots you'll take wrong (because lots of shit goes into power usage), but it's literally never wrong when comparing cameras between each other, which is the WHOLE POINT anon was talking about set standards. Yeah IP ratings are marketing in that they let the manufacturer slap a nice sticker on it. Woo. But if anon is looking to buy a camera and one is marketed as IP54 and another at IP67, then you can still safely compare that the second camera is better for that kind of stuff even if it probably still isn't immersion proof for 30 minutes."
Like, jesus "If you are too retarded to figure out if a body will meet your needs, adding an IP rating isn't going to change that"The a1 II and R1 both advertised weather sealing, but talk to anyone whose used both and you know the R1 is better sealed, you'd never figure this out from reviews because they don't test things like weather resistance, and they're both several thousand dollar flagships, am I meant to play fucking gacha and figure this out?The only brand without an IP rating that can be trusted is Pentax.
>>4477334>I asked specifically which cameras you used,You didn't ask me shit, nigga. I'm not the anon you were arguing with, I'm someone else pointing out out dumb you sound.>It's only good for comparing that specific CIPA rating, it doesn't hold up for actually comparing battery life on real world usageThat's exactly what we're both saying. That's what standards are for you ESL nerd.>Measure 1m with a stick that isn't actually 1m long>two people in a foot race, one wins one loses>"yeah but the measurement is wrong, therefore you didn't actually beat me"WOT.
>>4477324marketer hands typed this post
>CONSOOMER feature begging thread>PLEASE DADDY COMPANY DO ____ SO I DONT HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO TAKE CARE OF MYSELF! ADD A NEW "FILM SIM" NEXT! I NEED TO BUY EVERY NEW CAPABILTIY!The difference between a consoomerist feature beggar and intelligent person...>I need handheld pixel shift to scan film and take super resolution photos>I stitched 4 shots.>I need weather sealing>I use a plastic bag.>I need 10 stop IBIS>I have an 8 section tripod in my pocket.>It has to come with "good color science">I shoot raw and edit. Takes 5 seconds.-sent from my canon EOS M6 mk 1Still enough in 2025. Consoomers. Go buy a snoy om5ii LMFAO your $2000 may as well be wasted. You deserve to get poorer. I'm living life on warren buffet mode.
>>4477346Hey buddy you cant just skill your way around camera limitations. Mybrand > yourbrand. No matter how irrelevant it is, i have something you dont, and you got cucked, cuck! I feel like a real employed first world white man for once!
>>4477346Good for you, I still want O-rings and gaskets on my camera bodies/lenses.
>>4477352It's funny, I was thinking to myself and stop me if this is retarded but:>DSLRs become synonymous with words such as "robust" and "unkillable">Stills camera tech plateaus around 2010-2015 era>Transition to mirrorless>Smaller bodies as a result of no sneed for mirror box>Less area for ventilation or heatsinks as well>Push to hybridisation (reee)>Better video needs faster sensor tech>MILC cameras now output more heat than ever before>Gasketing a small MILC generating fuckshits of heat (thanks 4k120p) risks cooking the hardware due to no airflow egress>Fully IP67 weather sealing a unit would melt its own sensor after half an hour of video>Camera makers restrict weather sealing to improve airflow in smaller units>But larger units get better sealing thanks to better heat managementSo like all current issues with cameras, it's hybridization's fault?
>>4477354It's mirrorlesscuck's fault. HDSLRs were fine.
>>4477354Not necessarily, the fans in Panasonic's cameras don't allow water ingress to the internals, so you can have something well-cooled and weathersealed.For what it's worth, Panasonic reps claim their current range of cameras are the most weather sealed they've ever made them, no IP rating, so no proof, but alas....
>>4477352Don't entertain bait...
>>4477362I would also have to remind you that the Leica SL3 is the most weather sealed camera you can buy right now, and it is a hybrid mirrorless (8K ProRes), it is more weathersealed than 1D/Z9/D6/A1/S1/R1/E-M1/K1 etc. until proven otherwise (until they bother certifying their cameras to prove otherwise), sooooCan we blame the mirrorlesstards on this?
>>4477340>but talk to anyone whose used both and you know the R1 is better sealedAh! So you need an IP rating do you don't have to talk to anyone anymore>>4477339Okay nophotoComparing CIPA between cameras is also functionally useless
>>4477274the industry needs to copy pentaxhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDcUQNofFJU
>>4477429Agreed.Ricoh actually said the OG K5 met IPX2 certification. I wish they continued to disclose this with their customers.
>>4477368>Comparing CIPA between cameras is also functionally uselessThis is a braindead take. Surely you have something to back this claim up with. Seeing that anyone can grab two seperate cameras, look at which one has a higher CIPA raiting, and almost at 100% certainty have that one last longer than the other.
>>4477485Please, for the love of all that is holy, do not engage with bait that is clearer than the summer sky
>>4477346>I jacked off in a tissue
>>4477274It’s about liability. If Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fujifilm or Pentax put IP ratings on their cameras and lenses, they would have so much more responsibility to guarantee a certain performance. Being miserly and greedy, they don’t want that. They want their cameras and lenses to have the appearance of “ruggedness” and “durability” but they do not want to fulfil your warranty claims.
>>4477429Do that for five minutes at a 60° angle then turn the cam 180° and do it another five minutesif it still works that’s a 3 on the water ingress test for IP certification
>>4477362I can’t believe I’m gonna say thisbut it’s an ANTI-CONSUMER practicethey know their stuff’s IP ratings but they don’t want YOU, the CONSUMER, to know
>>4477296Who cares if its "IP rated" its literally fully submersible, its more weather sealed than any IP rated camera and has fully user serviceable gaskets.
>>4477485Flash is the easiest example, if the body has a built-in flash, it gets used for half the shotsConsider that CIPA uses camera defaults, so differences in "boost/performance/battery saving" etc modes aren't accounted forIf there is no default power related setting, it is set to hr highest powerThere is variance in power draw between different LCDs and EVFs that push different models based on which you prioritize, and they test whichever draws more power (so you could be comparing LCD vs EVF in some cases) and monitor is kept on 100% of the time regardless even if the cameras default has it sleep after a time (or if uses OVF like x100)IBIS isn't specified as part of the test protocol, so you might have some teated with and some without, based on defaultsCIPA is good for comparing how well brands set their camera defaults to test well with CIPAIt's probably a good ballpark for comparison, but still totally useless for real world shooting >>4477530But it doesn't have the rating! That's what OP needs, they don't care about how things actually perform.
>>4477611>That's what OP needs, they don't care about how things actually perform.this is sad cope. op wants the rating because it tells you how it actually performs instead of a brand going "lol trust me."
>>4477614>implying the IP-ratings aren't completely meaningless and paid off before they're even tested
>>4477614>op wants the rating because it tells you how it actually performsop just wants something to complain about instead of using a camera to take pictures
>>4477274IP54 isn't even impressive, and arguably most weather sealed cameras wee 54/53 even if not labeled as such
Weather sealing is every nophoto’s favorite point of contention. The autistic delight in comparisons and qualifications. When they evolve to an incompetent hasphoto and realize weather sealing is useless if your camera isnt fucking huge, they switch to color scienceAfter figuring out how to make three clicks in the raw editor they switch to megapixel related topics like reeeech and pixel well capacity. The gearfaggiest will delve into big pixel CCDs while those with hope will remain on the moar better and eventually realize they were wrong and stop caring about gear… or keep consuming. Don’t forget IBIS and sensor size equivalence and FPS and scan speed and…Then. They then switch to film and STILL don’t develop into a photographer despite overtly trying. They remain a gearfag who knows more chemistry than art and unironically concern themselves with the megapixel count of film. They mask this gearfaggotry by using a more artistic term - tonality - for ultra high resolution photos, rather than how photographers use it (calling sepia and b&w, crushed and flat, different tonalities)Many such cases. Autistic men getting into an artistic hobby never works out. Does trevor wisecup have weather sealing on a single camera? …no. Artists never even hop on the ride.
>>4477625Just see how very few images get posted here where weather sealing itself would even be a consideration
>>4477625Okay. Brands should still be held up to basic standards for build quality.
>>4477625I mean, one could always do worse. Like, get obsessed with someone who posts in a forum because you don't like the fact that your precious Sony scamera you spent so many hours slaving for at some dead end job isn't the best at every possible scenario. So you try to deny the fact that someone with a "lowly" 6 year old crop sensor DSLR can take more detailed pictures of distant subjects with every lens you could put on both cameras. You cope saying "get closer" but when both are equally close the DSLR guy mogs you every time. So you sperg instead and claim all you can get with more pixels is bigger aberrations. But the guy still gets more detailed pictures with the same optics.
>>4477630Consumerist gearfag>>4477631Megapixel obsessed gearfagAutistic men don’t belong in artistic hobbies.
>>4477639Ad hom. Try to refute the argument instead.
>>4477640The argument is you are a gearfag. Does trevor wisecup use reach and weather sealing?
>>4477642That's not a real argument against "camera brands should have IP ratings", it's an ad hom and an appeal to authority.
>>4477651IP ratings don’t affect real photographers. It seems more like you are entitled and lack skill and ingenuity.
>>4477630They are, they just don't care about a label that doesn't actually add much to a consumerGetting an IP54/53 rating only means>The enclosure prevents a sufficient amount of dust from entering to interfere with the satisfactory operation of the device.And>The device is protected against water falling as a spray at any angle up to 60° from the vertical.Or>This rating means the product is protected against water splashes from any direction. This is often referred to as being "splash-proof".That's all, already covered by most marketing materials, and most sealed cameras already would meet those standards anyways
>>4477652>No true photographer needs IP ratingslol keep it coming. So easily refuted too.
>>4477642>Wisecup>artistDoes he paint, write prose or something like that? Because he's a photojournalist of the mundane.Now, since you brought up artists and reach. Does Gursky use reach?
>>4477655Neither of those have IP ratings
>>4477654True IP ratings are tested and verified independently, which actually says and means something unlike marketing materials.
>>4477655Sorry I meant artists, not journalists from 20 years ago aka snapshitters. Journalists today all use sony which drives home the point. Weather sealing doesnt matter.
>>4477657This is a response to "weather sealing is not useful." If you accept weather sealing is useful you should accept that IP ratings are useful.
>>4477659I see, leaning back on no true photographers again. Concession accepted.
>>4477658>1 test in a lab is more relevant than simply looking at other's real world experiencesThat anon was right, true autists
>>4477662Where did I say that? You can have both.
>>4477655Real photographers don't need IP ratings, very true, and good example with cameras that don't have IP ratings>>4477658The only thing they say is the same as the marketing material>>4477660Weather sealing is useful, a lack of IP rating doesn't mean anything with regards to how weather sealed a camera isDo you also rely on the BBB?
>>4477665>marketing materials never include real world experiences
>>4477667>The only thing they say is the same as the marketing materialAn independent authority is more reliable than marketing materials.>a lack of IP rating doesn't mean anything with regards to how weather sealed a camera isThe presence of an IP rating does say something though.
>>4477668Marketing materials aren't especially trustworthy. I thought you meant real world experiences from real users, not people trying to sell you the camera.
>>4477669>again, 1 lab test is more reliable than the actual real world experiences of users>does say something thoughIt says a brand bothered to get a certification, that's all>>4477670>not people trying to sell you the cameraYou mean like the brands paying for a marketing gimmick to better sell you a camera? Notice how OP brings up Leica and OM, those are really the two consumer focused brands?
>>4477672Seems to me like it's the two brands that need to rely most on marketing gimmicks like this
>>4477672>It says a brand bothered to get a certification, that's allIt's a certification of weather sealing.
>>4477669>The presence of an IP rating does say something though.Yeah, it says what the IP rating says. Not particularly useful.>>4477674>It's a certification of weather sealing.Not a particularly important one. Reminds me of crash test stars, nowadays in some markets they give them away for just having dumb electronic shit even if your structure sucks.
>>4477674It's a certification that says>The enclosure prevents a sufficient amount of dust from entering to interfere with the satisfactory operation of the device.And>The device is protected against water falling as a spray at any angle up to 60° from the vertical.Or>This rating means the product is protected against water splashes from any direction. This is often referred to as being "splash-proof".Which we already know from both marketing and independent experienceMaybe the other brands are just so historically reliable they don't need to bother, like the picture posted above
>>4477675IP ratings go as far as continuous submergability and many levels in between.
>>4477676>Which we already know from both marketing>trusting marketing everHell yeah brother keep on coping
>>4477680>trusting marketing everYou know IP ratings are often tested in house too right? I don't know for Leica, but OM has absolutely rated itself
>>4477681Then it's not a real IP rating. I'm not defending any particular brand, I'm saying (real) IP ratings mean something and should be expected from top level camera brands.
>>4477680>brand marketing bad>brand in house testing and rating itself for a certification to be used as marketing good
>>4477682>and should be expected from top level camera brands.You haven't given any reason for this thoughWhat is the value added by an IP rating beyond marketing, which is bad?
>>4477683Yes. The problem isn't marketing verified claims, it's marketing unverified claims.
>>4477685Good point. Here is what IP ratings mean: https://www.nemaenclosures.com/blog/ingress-protection-ratings/
>>4477685Accountability I guess, but good luck with that.
>>4477688You know a camera that isn't IP rated and mogs the majority in durability? Olympus TG-4.Waterproof up to 10m. Dustproof. Shockproof up to 2.1m. Freezeproof.No IP meme.
>>4477691The new ones have excellent IP ratings and are just as reliable. Almost like the certification does nothing but prove reliability and should be standard for every camera above $200.
>>4477693How do you IP certify an interchangeable lens camera anon? You'd have to do one certification per camera/lens combo and the packaging would have so many asterisks you couldn't read the model name on it.
>>4477694Why don't you ask Leica and/or OM System?
>>4477686>it's marketing unverified claims.Do you have any examples?>>4477688True, you'll see I also posted what the ratings mean above
>>4477705Any camera brand advertising weather sealing and not providing an IP score is marketing an unverified claim. Not having an IP rating is strictly worse than having one. Whether or not other brands market sealing at all doesn't change this fact.
>>4477710Autism. None of that shit matters. My z6ii got rained on and survived. Fuji X has 7% market share but more reported weather failures than nikon Z, a system that is over twice as popular (and has no reported WR failures). Therefore nikon has better weather sealing than fuji. Problem, autist? Mad that you have to get info from people other than daddy corporation?
>>4477710>IP ratings are the only way to verify weather sealing claimsYou could've just said you were retarded and I would've stopped earlierHaving an IP rating is good for marketing to retards like you, nothing more>>4477713Man, no need to go retarded too
>>4477714Fuji’s bad QC is why fewer people buy fuji than nikon its really that simpleThe bad autofocus and equally high price dont help, but the new cameras aren’t as well made as the old MIJ models.
>>4477716>I don't understand the camera market at allThat's okay anon
>>4477718Fuji just isnt popular. They have a huge social media presence but not so many serious customers besides do-nothing chinese loners buying up limited runs (lol @ china’s excess male crisis).
>>4477714I didn't say that. What's your proposed alternative? If it's as good as an IP rating and independently verified I'm fine with it. If it's what almost every camera brand is doing aka "just trust me bro" then it's worthless.
>>4477719This, it's a massive shill circlejerk but their sales amount to a rounding error in the grand scheme of things.
>>4477720There are no alternatives. That one review site that tested water ingress stopped doing that a long time ago although they had plans on a more rigorous procedure but I guess people didn't care enough to support them. But it was useful for knowing to avoid the A7III if you were going to use it in bad weather although that says nothing about the later models which Sony claims were improved. IP certification is cheap but manufacturers won't do it because that is a nightmare on the warranty side. Like someone could have dropped their camera into a river and they do a claim "it failed in the rain" or maybe they were using a non certified lens. Even with underwater cameras you have to do seal replacement and maintenance and that is hard to prove. Plenty of failures even with the Nikon AW-1 which was underwater rated and interchangeable. I would like IP testing and certification as well and can't stand manufacturers touting all kinds of weather sealing without backing it up with their warranties but that's the state we are in today. At best we can assume something with rubber gaskets in diagrams is better than something with fewer or none and cameras with people demonstrating them under faucets with updates as to functionality are better than those without. But those are just assumptions - for all we know, some Canon Rebel could be designed in a way that water gets in but drains right out past any paths that would break it and the R5 could be one compromised seal from bricking. I recommend just buying a beater camera or plastic bag.
>>4477274Fuck that shyet.If Nikon wanted to like they did before, they could put that fucking Nikonos trademark they just renewed a couple years ago to use and make a fucking Nikonos Z.That's fully waterproof, not resistant, to 180 feet deep muddafuckas.
>>4477807Just a 50yo camera in its natural environment yousonsa so an so
>>4477719>yes, I don't understand the camera market No need to repeat what you said mate>>4477720The alternative is not being a retard about what labels your brand of choice hasIt's pretty easy to get an idea of a cameras durability without seeing an IP rating (that adds nothing of value)>>4477807They did put out the AW1, which was like IP68Too bad they sold like shit at the time
>>4477525I don't know if it's true, so you're telling me OM of all companies can afford to fix cameras that Canon can't? My beloved OM which has had declining sales since 2020?There is no law which states manufacturers have to cover ingress damage if their ingress protected-rated product fails. Not even OM honours such a warranty.
>>4477622>and arguably most weather sealed cameras wee 54/53 even if not labeled as suchWell... Proof? They don't have an IP rating to prove that, do they? Can you back this up?>>4477625>Trevor WisecupLmfaoWhat the fuck is up with white men in the industrialised north going like "eugh I don't need weather sealing"? Spend one fucking day in Cairo or Baghdad where there's illegal building sites and the air keeps driving up cement in your face as you try avoid the paint molecules from the nearby bridge servicing Then do all of this while trying to smash your way through barely-existent pavement until you realize the sky is grey and now you'll have to deal with a South East Asian level torrential rainstorm that floods everything up until torso-level (Baghdad becomes an ocean every winter approximately 15 times)Then some guy says Jon Friedrich who lives in New England says he doesn't find weather sealing important because its never an environmental disorder in WashingtonOh and he went to Sweden once and had a snowstorm while he was shooting, as if ice isn't something a Rebel split in half can survive>>4477639All great artists are autistic. It is not possible to be both neurotypical and be a capable artist. You can perfect drawing calming landscapes and call yourself an artist but only a retard like Robert Capa would take pictures of D-Day for the fuck of it.
>>4477694OM makes IP53 rated lenses.
>>4477676>Which we already know from both marketingTHIS FUCKER GETS HIS INFORMATION FROM THE MARKETING DEPARTMENTHE UNIRONICALLY BELIEVES CLAIMS MADE BY COMPANIES>CANON CERTIFIED A FUCKING GOLF RANGEFINDER BUT WON'T CERTIFY THE R1CANON CERTIFIED A FUCKING GOLF RANGEFINDER BUT WON'T CERTIFY THE R1>CANON CERTIFIED A FUCKING GOLF RANGEFINDER BUT WON'T CERTIFY THE R1CANON CERTIFIED A FUCKING GOLF RANGEFINDER BUT WON'T CERTIFY THE R1>CANON CERTIFIED A FUCKING GOLF RANGEFINDER BUT WON'T CERTIFY THE R1CANON CERTIFIED A FUCKING GOLF RANGEFINDER BUT WON'T CERTIFY THE R1>CANON CERTIFIED A FUCKING GOLF RANGEFINDER BUT WON'T CERTIFY THE R1CANON CERTIFIED A FUCKING GOLF RANGEFINDER BUT WON'T CERTIFY THE R1
>>4478041And they do the ratings themselves>>4478040>ProofAll the thousands of examples of people using different gear in harsh conditions and having it surviveIf you've shot in harsh rain for 30min, congrats your camera is IPX3If you've been in torrential downpours (like I have), congrats IPX4>>4478042Cope more certification cuck
>>4478038NTA but yes, the big three sell cameras at box stores and those consumers will almost certainly treat IP ratings as an excuse to use their camera like a GoPro. Even if the companies refuse to cover that damage, it still costs them in terms of reputation. Owners are far more likely to report an AW1 failing from water than a regular Nikon and people are way more likely to blame the IP rated camera for the fault whereas they will blame the user if their dSLR failed in the rain. Unlike the other anon though, I think IP certification does have value. Sometimes it just tells us what we already knew like in the case of the OM-1 being IP certified whereas the EM-1III if I recall is not despite them being identical but it can also clue us in as to whether a manufacturer has designed a product to be weather resistant e.g. smartphones and wireless access points as opposed to just getting "an idea of a cameras durability" from marketing fluff like with the A6300 which was advertised as dust and moisture resistant but real life handling of weather was actually pretty crappy as were most Sonys of that era.
>>4478038>There is no law which states manufacturers have to cover ingress damagJust like there's no law saying they have to have an IP rating>>4478051100% agree on the liability side of things, handled hundreds of repairs and "waterproof" cameras were always a huge hassle with the manufacturer
>>4478055>Just like there's no law saying they have to have an IP ratingLiterally noone said this>4478048>All the thousands of examples of people using different gear in harsh conditions and having it survive>Johnny said that Caleb said...the fuck is this weather sealing hadith?
>>4478042>IP ceritify a golf rangefinder>it fails>warranty claim is $350 at retail and probably half that at-cost>IP certify the R1>it fails>warranty claim is $6500 and probably 2/3rds that at-cost
Weather sealing doesn’t matter. Cameras didn’t need it for 100 years except for a dustproofing (no IP rating)… to prevent dust from escaping… for use on spacecraft. Get real. Stop purposefully getting your camera wet.
>>4478078>Stop purposefully getting your camera wet.Did I not address this "le don't take the photo" faggotry in the post? Go to another board. You're not a photographer.
>>4478096>ur not a photographer>says the poseur who cant get that photographers either cover or pocket their personal gearweather sealing is for jewelry and massive cameras that cant be kept covered practically, like a nikon z9 and 180-600. sorry you overconsoomed on a non pocketable mildly oversized specs masheen. Show me how many of trevor wisecups cameras are weather sealed. Like, one maybe? It’s never mattered. You are a consumerist fool.
