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.
>>4478129>massive cameras that cant be kept covered practicallyNo, you can cover ANY camera and lens practically with a plastic bag. Even a towel does the job but you can stuff a plastic bag anywhere.
>>4478206now swap between portrait and landscape like thatgranted its nice to see no one gives a shit about weather sealing. leica’s IP rating is only with the body cap on and no buttons or dials being used, for example. they paid money for that rating to charge retards extra.
>>4478216>now swap between portrait and landscape like thatNever used a tripod collar ring before retard?
>>4478298Why the fuck would I ever use a tripod?
>>4478304Nice self-report, streetfag
>>4478308Not a street photographer, just buy camera+lens with atleast 7 stops of IBIS, tripods limit movement OM-1 can hold a 30sec landscape on Parkinson's hands and still not produce a motion artifactAnd it's actually weather sealed so you don't need to look like a faggot with a grocery bag
i still wanna know what camera body op is using and what warzone he is going to
>>4478314Micro four thirds is for gearfag cucks who give up photo quality for specs that real photographers have never neededYou really think sports journalists handhold 30s landscapes? Does anyone want to as badly as they want smeary m43 quality with puke olympanus and penisonic colors?>>4478379The last warzone photographer discussed on /p/ uses a canon RP and EF 50mm f1.2
>>4478381>You really think sports journalists handhold 30s landscapes? Why is a sports journalist shooting landscapes? Are you retarded?
>>4478304>photo of sports photographers using covers with monopods>b-b-b-but try swapping between portrait and landscape>they simply loosen the tripod collar and rotate the camera>heh, I don't use tripods anywayGuess what genius, it's even easier to rotate the camera without the tripod collar.>>4478314>OM-1 can hold a 30sec landscapeYou own this camera? May we see your 30 second handheld photos? How consistent can you actually do this? What kind of moron buys a $2000 OM-1 for landscape when it has 12.8 stops of dynamic range and 20.4MP? You can buy a used D3200 for $200 with 13.2 stops of dynamic range and 24MP and that is a waste of money considering you can get a FF 36MP D800 with 14.8 stops of dynamic range for $500. But yeah, blow your highlights and enjoy your lower resolution because you didn't want to carry a plastic bag and tripod.>muh plastic bagThe mindset of a gearfag.
>>4478456>You own this camera? Hah, no, I'm a poorfag, I just like reading reviews for fun. I mentioned that specifically because it makes sense as a probody for professional sports people who probably have money to burn on their tools.>How consistent can you actually do this? Depends on how much coffee you've had, but from what I've seen? Fairly consistent, photographer Leigh Windridge managed to get 30 seconds out of an OM-1, and you could do 15 secs with a 2016 Olympus OMD EM1 Mk II according to Phoblographer> What kind of moron buys a $2000 OM-1 for landscape when it has 12.8 stops of dynamic range and 20.4MP?You'd be surprised, 99% of OM's userbase is wildlife and landscape people, their entire marketing is towards landscape peopleThis is because Olympus realized a decade ago that micro-four-thirds was kinda cope so they added a lot of features to try to compete, so now Olympus stuff is pretty nice for landscape, because you can toggle on the 80MP super resolution stuff, get 14-16 or so stops of DR, and use the Live ND stuff to be able to hold long exposures and do starry sky stuff without a tripod, looks pretty nice.>The mindset of a gearfag.Maybe to you, I don't consider myself a gearfag since I seldom give a fuck about a camera's performance outside of it's weather sealing (I am part of the "they're all pretty good nowadays & far better than someone like me would need" camp)I *have* to travel light, I change lenses on the spot, I am often in dusty environments more than rain and a plastic bag wouldn't help. It's not for me.
>>4478464you don't take photos at all and olympus went out of business because all that ibis and pixel shift shit did nothing to actually improve the image quality. the pixel shifted shots looked like smeary phone IQ with tons of digital artifacts and the ibis was useless because the cameras are hard locked to being the same as a iso 1000 full frame camerathey went out of businessnothing they made or said they could do mattered in real lifethe few people who bought their shit dumped them and bought a normal camerathe sole niche olympus has left is basically selling a bridge camera that lets you replace the lens when it breaks, for wildlife biologists to identify tiny birds with. that's it. everyone else just uses an a6000 and the kit lens and gets better image quality for 1/4 as much money while olympussies rant about IP ratings - which photography has never actually needed unless it was an underwater housing"its the current year, everything should have this" - every nerd ever, about everything that never mattered
>>4478464So in the image from one of his videos, he's leaning against a post, arms locked in holding the camera as steadily as he can with with his head as additional support and here's one of his 30s shots. Blurry mess. So no, it isn't consistent. He does have a 30s one that is usable but the corners are blurred because IBIS can't keep everything in focus. And 30s certainly doesn't work with telephoto so I guess if you are only shooting wideangle and the light isn't changing much so you can spend several minutes trying to get a stable image where corner quality, dynamic range, and resolution don't matter then fine. Of course the guy with the $200 D3200 and a tripod can consistently take long exposure, sharp corner to corner, wideangle to telephoto, better dynamic range and higher resolution images without needing any special techniques. Their marketing might be to landscape people but that doesn't make it a better landscape camera. Super resolution doesn't work when there is movement in the frame and any DR improvement can be replicated with exposure stacking with any other camera. You can get 14.8 stops without needing any kind of stacking with the D800. I'm sure you can make up a case where you just HAVE to use an OM-1 and NO OTHER camera can meet your requirements but if you are in a dusty location and are changing lenses, the OM-1 will still allow dust in. Plus dust will work its way into the seals and compromise the weather sealing.
>>4478473>you don't take photosI took one of ur mom last night>the pixel shifted shots looked like smeary phone IQFactually untrue though, I haven't seen one that bad>olympus went out of business because all that ibis and pixel shift shit did nothing to actually improve the image qualityNo, they went out of business because it was a company ran by criminals and the white guy they tried bribing with a CEO position still exposed them.>everyone else just uses an a6000 and the kit lensI don't know what's with this sub's obsession with the a6000, I actually own (as shown in pic alongside my Xpong), its really not that good of a camera as you guys say it is, and the DPReview tests show it as having less DR than most M4/3 cameras, I like it because it's tiny though (thinking of selling and getting a NEX because those are even tinier, I wanna go smaller)>"its the current year, everything should have this" - every nerd ever, about everything that never matteredWhy is wanting better so bad for you?
>>4478486Gay furries are taking better photos than you with an EOS M and the kit zoom, and basically you're fucking retarded
>>4478486"This sub's" I'm unconsciously doing redditspeak now, PTSD
>>4478487No contest, lots of skilled gay furries out there.
>>4478480>Their marketing might be to landscape people but that doesn't make it a better landscape camera. Super resolution doesn't work when there is movement in the frame and any DR improvement can be replicated with exposure stacking with any other camera. You can get 14.8 stops without needing any kind of stacking with the D800. I'm sure you can make up a case where you just HAVE to use an OM-1 and NO OTHER camera can meet your requirements but if you are in a dusty location and are changing lenses, the OM-1 will still allow dust in. Plus dust will work its way into the seals and compromise the weather sealing.In my defense I never said the OM-1 would be better than a bigger sensor camera, that would be m43 cope on my behalf, but what I demand is a camera that allows me the freedom of not using a tripod.Of course, the OM-1 will still let dust in, but it'll survive as long as it's up to an IP5X standard, that's the whole point, the point is that it tells me how much it can take before it can die, so I know when pushing too far is too far
>>4478480>>4478486>DPReview tests show it as having less DR than most M4/3 camerasIf you say so. DXO has the ancient A6000 with 13.1 stops vs the 12.8 on the OM-1. And DPReview's comparison shows the OM-1 Mark III looking worse than the third of a stop difference on DXO would suggest (maybe baked in Sony NR RAW).>>4478500Other cameras have IBIS anon. m43 IBIS is better but it only really matters in certain kinds of video. Going for the OM-1 because they bothered to get IP5X involves a lot of tradeoffs especially when you can seal up a better cheaper camera more effectively with a plastic bag.
>>4478508>Going for the OM-1 because they bothered to get IP5X involves a lot of tradeoffsabsolutely, that's kinda the cope of M4/3, I'm fine with it though, honestly I have no problems with a6000 IQ whatsoever, I say it's "not that good of a camera" completely basing that on the standards of /p/ because I know half of you own some pretty high-end cameras, a Canon EOS R7 owner would think the a6000 IQ is bad, for me it's more than enoughI just want a camera that's certified and tells me exactly how much it's designed to handle before failing, because I live in bumfuck nowhere where the weather is extreme to say the least, and I wanna go do some /out/ing for some extreme ranges so tripods are something I will have to shave offLeica pretty much makes the camera that OM System refuses to make, their MILCs are way better in the whole weather sealing department, but, Leica also expects you to be loaded, OM sells you a midrange camera at $900 and their top of the line at $2000
>>4478513Ok so you are poor and want to do extreme weather photography at extreme ranges and your A6000 with a kit lens which weighs 1lb + $100 2lb tripod + $0.50 plastic bag is too much. But an OM-1 with the equivalent 12-40mm lens which weighs a little over 2lbs and costs $3,000 is the solution. Right.
>>4478519I will shave off the tripod not for weight, but for the space it takes up, even those collapsible ones take up spots which could have otherwise been food or medicine, I'm not doing hiking trips I'm straight up travellingAnd, well, I might be poor, but I do make money, I will get there sooner or later, I invest the bulk of my money to photography
>>4478574So you are just going to wait until you can afford a bulkier worse camera than the one you own and be another nophotos gearfag on /p/. Got it. Honestly you are better off with using your smartphone. IP68 so better than the garbage IP ratings from Olympus or even Leica. No problems rinsing it off if it gets dusty. Long exposure and high DR are easy on smartphones as well plus they let you pack even more food and medicine. Mind you the OM-1 is a LOT bulkier than your A6000 let alone a smartphone. You can also easily strap a tripod to the outside of your pack where you aren't storing food or medicine if weight isn't the issue. Or bump up ISO and ditch the tripod since you are willing to settle for inferior m43 quality. But no, I'm sure you have more excuses coming.
>>4478603>worse camera than the one you ownIt takes mental gymnastics to claim the OM-1 is worse than the a6000, the camera is never going into my bag so I don't really care how big it is>Honestly you are better off with using your smartphoneI already do, I'm a mobile photographer, I take RAWs and edit them in Lightroom Mobile>. You can also easily strap a tripod to the outside of your pack where you aren't storing food or medicine if weight isn't the issue.That's where the guitar and solar panel go.>Or bump up ISO and ditch the tripod since you are willing to settle for inferior m43 quality.I already do this on my a6000, I don't remember taking a photo under ISO 1600 with the kit lens.When I print my photos they still look nice.
>>4478651>It takes mental gymnastics to claim the OM-1 is worse than the a6000The OM-1 is better in some things sure but it has: worse dynamic range, worse ISO performance, worse resolution, larger and heavier (worse for travel), more expensive. Mental gymnastics btw.
>>4478655>worse dynamic rangeThe a6000 measures 9 f-stops at base ISO, the OM-1 measured 10...It has infinitely better build quality, infinitely better battery life, infinitely better EVF, actual IBIS, actual video performance, infinitely better menus, and it does all of that with better dynamic range, fuck the 4 extra megapixels
>>4478651>I don't remember taking a photo under ISO 1600 with the kit lens.>When I print my photos they still look nice.Printing is rather effective at hiding noise espeically at smaller sizes like 12x8 and under.Chronically digital fags don't know this however.>>4478656>The a6000 measures 9 f-stopsGrim.
>>4478659>Grim. Yeah, that's why I said the a6000 isn't that good of a camera, it's APS-C with less than M4/3 dynamic range, but it.was early mirrorless days so yknow
>>4478661Never seen a 9 stop figure for the A6000. RTINGS says 9.8 vs 10.2 for the OM-1 which is slightly behind modern APS-C. DXO says 13.1 for the A6000 which is tied with the GH-5 II and slightly behind the GX-700 and ahead of all other m43 cams. They have not tested the G9II or OM-1 though. I do know that my A6500 is noticeably ahead of my G9II.
>>4478665This might break your brain but all of these DR figures are fake. There have been some improvements in ADC precision and therefore *highlight* recovery (you get an extra half bit buying newer maybe) but they’re mostly adding hardware noise filtering. All reviewers just measure SNR of normalized images (leading to surprises like the z7ii looking like aps-c next to the z6ii even if you downscale because normalizing includes gaussian blur that would make any attempt at a tasteful photo look like garbage) and manufacturers exploit this rather than doing NR in software. The NR on the a6700 and basically every canon EOS R is really fucking blurry in the deep shadows. M43 DR has never gone up without dual readout (a canon invention) but the noise filtering has. Supposed hdr olympus sensors actually have more NR to overcompensate for being stacked.
>>4478677Are you talking about the photonstophotos data that shows the EOS R3 and probably tons of other R series cameras basically applying noise reduction at every setting and the Snoy star eater problem? I noticed that my G9II is a worse performer than my G9 since it has some kind of NR in the shadows.
>>4478690Those charts only detect the most egregious and software based NR. The a6700 and every nikon Z after the first ones have some deep shadow bullshit going on. This doesn’t affect use unless you routinely fuck up by 4-6 stops but it does mean when you care about dxomark you’re wasting your time.
>>4478695For an old sensor like the A6000 the measurements should be fine then? Bill's data says 10.2 for the A6000 and 9.8 for the OM-1 which presumably has NR baked which probably explains why RTINGS got a higher DR for the Olympus. There's definitely some subjectivity since he assigns the triangle to whether he notices it. Anyway, how do you personally compare DR?
>>4478704like this:if the sensor is aps-c it is good enoughmore better
>>4478707If I don't want blurry deep shadows because I want to raise them which cameras don't cook their raws? I'd rather have the option to do the NR myself in that event.
>>4478707if the sensor is m43 it is good enoughthe more is just for wanking your tiny penis
>>4479024micro four thirds is garbage that markets useless gimmicks to nerds who take shitty photos
>>4479028Based and correct. Imagine giving up rendering for “IBIS”. Literally zero photos worth taking need IBIS. And then they ramble about this nerd equivalence theory that doesnt even work IRL because fuji photos all look 2x better than m43 photos both technically because the cameras are better and artistically because m43 fanboys are all soulless gear nerds.
>>4477274a7c35mm f2.8Simple as>bbbut i cant run it under a faucet for youtubePut it in your pocketCarry an umbrella
>>4479036>muh renderingolympus's shittiest kit zoom is sharper than any fullmeme lens that canikon has ever shat outif you don't have m43 and have never used panaleica lenses you don't actually know what good rendering is>>4479037>put it in your pocket bro>Le "just don't take a picture! I wouldn't push my camera that hard!"Gimped mentally retarded specimen take>Carry an umbrellaMuh umbrella against dust
>>4479042>muh sharpnessYou dont take good photos. You’re a tech nerd reality scanner. Micro fool turds are just poorer versions of snoy z7ii gay master retards.
>>4479049>You dont take good photos.crazy because i do, you however dont
>>4479057>uhm the heckin olympus kit lens has sharper pixels than every nikon lens ever madeYou just don’t take photos at all
i think leica is too expensivewhy would you buy a leica when they dont have autofocus or video?
>>4479864That's exactly why they buy it.It's just a manual focus lens in front of a big sensor.
>>4479072You only say that because I do, and you don't >>4479864Zach, we are talking about SL series Leicas, which do have (pretty good) autofocus and video, and IP54>>4479877Cute tarot card
