What's the difference between water-proof vs weather-proof?

[canon_nikon]

<p>I have a 7D and I am googling and I can't find anything regarding the differences between "waterproof" and "weatherproof". They say the Canon 7D is "weather-proof" but what does that mean? Can I take the camera out and take pictures in a rainy storm? I'm going to costa rica next month I just need to know if it is safe for me to expose my canon 7D + 24-105L in a rain forest? Although I'm sure water-proof doesn't mean sticking your $1700 camera in the ocean while snorkeling... -_-"</p>

[martin_engineer]

<p>Hey,<br>

Check out this website, it's got a bit of info and some cool pics. I think it'll help.<br>

<a href="http://canonfieldreviews.com/7d-1-weather-sealing/">http://canonfieldreviews.com/7d-1-weather-sealing/</a></p>

[maury_cohen]

<p>I also see this question come up frequently in regard to camera bags and packs. It seems that people generally tend to use the term "water-proof" a bit loosely.<br>

Water-proof lterally means that water cannot get in. This is often qualifed by certain degrees of exposure, such as to a given depth of immersion, for a specified period of time.<br>

Weather-proof and "water-resistant" refer to qualities that add to an items "resistance" to water entry. there may be seals, flaps, etc. that contribute to better seals against water entry; but usually these products are not intended to be fully, or even partially immersed in water.</p>

[jackie_baisa]

<p>Waterproof means that, yes, you can take it underwater. Weather-proof is just that: you can take it out in all kinds of weather. But don't submerge the camera fully in water. However, it will be okay in rain and snow and fairly high heat, etc.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>"Weather Proof" means the camera can be operated in the rain. I believe that somewhere Canon quote a number for their series 1 cameras in "inches/hr" of rain. I don't know what the number is, but what it means it that while a camera may be OK in a light drizzle or soft steady rain, it may not be OK in a torrential downpour or a category 1 hurricane.</p>

<p>I'd advise keeping the camera as dry as you can, not worrying if it gets a little water on it but not deliberately taking it out unprotected in a rain storm. You can buy waterproof covers for cameras and lenses (Laird make them for example). I'd use the cameras weather resistance as a second line of defense.</p>

[michael_young3]

<p>A Canon tech wrote me, in response to an identical query:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"The 7D is not a weather sealed camera. It should not under any circumstance get wet."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would be interested to hear what they tell you.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p>Page 8 of Canon's EOS System Fall 2008 catalogue describes their EOS SLR Technology and mentions Dust-and-<strong>Water-Resistant</strong> construction. Further ahead on page 28 under EF Lens Technology defines Dust-and-Water-Resistant construction:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Most L-Series EF telephoto lenses are highly dust-and water-resistant thanks to rubber seals at the switch panels, exterior seams, drop-in filter compartments and lens mounts. Moving parts, such as the focusing ring and switches, are also designed to keep out environmental contaminants, providing reliable performance under harsh conditions.</strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would presume the seals and gaskets of the 7D and some of the other Canon DSLR's meet with the above definition.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>I have been through a hurricane, but it was night time and photographing it was not forefront in my mind! But I have used my 1 series cameras very happily unprotected in tropical monsoons. As in the top image. The water was running off the camera and lens.</p>

<p>But a very good way of protecting your gear for next to nothing is this. Get some ziplock bags, 1gallon ones work for wide angle and mid range lenses, bigger ones work better for 70-200 etc. Cut a hole in the bottom, put your lens hood on the lens and then put them both in the ziplock, hood end towards the hole. Get some duct tape, I prefer the PVC type because it comes off very cleanly with no residue, and tape the hole around the hood. Now you can close the bag to store and when you want to use it open the bag and attach the body. It keeps all but the very worst of the weather out and is light enough that you can use it (you put your hands inside the open bag to use the camera) you can see everything and when you don't want it they store in no space and if you tear it just use another. I use them to protect from salt water spray when working from small boats just like the lady in the second image. She has an Aquatech version but doesn't use it, prefering the ziplock trick!</p><div></div>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Weather proof means that with care it should survive in rain / spray. Keep wiping the water off the body and lens and try and shelter it from the worst. So far I have never suffered damage although I try and use a 1 series body and a sealed lens. Waterproof is a different standard - the only camera I trust in really wet conditions (e.g. kayaking) is the Nikonos!</p>

[scott_jones9]

<p>I've used a 30D/24-105 L alongside a 5D1/70-200 L in several hours of fairly significant drizzle (shooting a marathon and getting soaked while trying to shelter the equipment), 30D/50mm 1.8 (getting caught in a surprise downpour while shooting firedancing), and other lenses in less demanding weather without any ill effects. Luckily the 5D2 hasn't had any significant exposure...yet...but that will likely change over time... All equipment always gets thorough cleaning and drying after these activities and is never put away wet.</p>

<p>That said, I don't think I'd ever trust *any* claims of off the shelf camera equipment being water*proof*. That's what they make the enclosures for... If you *need* the best weather protection possible, go straight to the *1* series, or take your chances with the 5D2/7D... I recall reading somewhere that the 5D2 and 7D have weather resistance comparable to the 1D2/1Ds2 era. Below that it's likely more of a crap shoot unless you take the advice above and use additional protection.</p>

[steven_crist]

 

<p><em>"A Canon tech wrote me, in response to an identical query:</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"The 7D is not a weather sealed camera. It should not under any circumstance get wet."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>I would be interested to hear what they tell you."</em></p>

<p>The Canon professional site infers that none but the 1 series are "weather resistant". They say it's because the 1 series doesn't have the rotary mode dial and a built-in flash which per Canon can't readily be made weather tight. The 7D may have better seals than other Canon non-1 series bodies but the basic design is still the same. I use a pair of 1 series but only in light drizzles and have never had any problems. I have friends that use them in any weather - again with no problems. It all depends on how far you want to tempt fate. Personally the bigger issue with me is the dust resistance. There is dust outdoors (and to a lesser degree indooors) every day and this can accumulate inside the camera and that can't be good.</p>

 

[scott_ferris]

<p>Steven,</p>

<p>It depends on which country and how litigatious they are. The US being the most sue happy get the least implied protection. In Scandinavia, where people generally don't sue because their coffee is too hot, or too cold, the 1 series are advertised as weatherproof.</p>

[michael_young3]

<p>Tort law has its place in a civil society. The alternative is an overly large and even more corrupt central government, which now should be all too plain. Be very careful what you wish for. In the particular current context of merchants and manufacturers, what's wrong with holding them to honest, straight talk about limitations and acceptable use? Which part of "improved weatherproofing" should the layperson read as implying "should not under any circumstance get wet"?</p>

 

[scott_ferris]

<p><em>"Tort law has its place in a civil society."</em></p>

<p>How true Michael, and as soon as the USA becomes one I am sure their legal system will work well. Now, however, it plainly does not, there are far too many instances of frivolous and problematic personal claims for seemingly the stupidest/daftest/moneymakingest (I just made that up) reasons. Because of that, companies have to protect themselves from it, which makes the USA seem like it is inhabited, to a large degree, by mischievous children let loose in a toy store (and their lawyers). Well they do to much of the outside world and that is the world I inhabit. I once dealt with a broken ankle in the States, I could not get a surgeon to operate due to legal reasons, the patient was flown to the UK with her still badly broken ankle and operated on there.</p>

<p>Another real problem that has grown out of all this stuff is that Americans too often don't have a clue about personal safety and their complacency is only increased if they don't see a warning sign that has been insisted upon by a company lawyer.</p>

[michael_young3]

<p>And speaking of childish, does painting so broadly with those half baked generalities demonstrate mature thinking on your part? Did you pause to consider that those thoughts were planted at least in part by corporations shirking their responsibilities and denying their accountability? Does greed run rampant only in individual citizens, but not at corporate levels?</p>

<p>The key words here are responsibility, liability, and accountability. We're told that the 7D has improved weather sealing, but that this means only that the camera must never get wet. Give me the benefit of your adult understanding and help this child understand just what this means.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>No, it is a view garnered from years of personal experience. Your culture, like that of everybody else, is judged by what the world sees of it. Yes, but I don't believe that to be the case, the country I live does not allow corporations, chain stores etc to do buisness here, I live in a very small, differently tainted, environment.</p>

<p>I know how far behind me another vehicle is even without a warning sign printed in the mirror, that sign is not put there to protect anybody, it is put there to prevent the company being sued again, that a clever lawyer convinced a court that a car company was partly responsible for a drivers lack of attention or misjudgment is farcical. I am far from the only one in the world that believes that your system is fatally flawed. Is it coincidence that, as far as I know, the USA is the only country in the world to carry such a notice?</p>

<p>What it means is this, in the countries where people don't sue on a whim, and win, then companies have the balls to say, yes, our cameras are weatherproof, people take them out in all weather and use them and generally there are no problems. Companies can't do that in the States, invariably some idiot gets a lawyer to twist common sense to the point that he can convince a court that Joe Average was perfectly entitled to take his weatherproof camera snorkeling because that is less hostile than a hurricane and the camera is guaranteed to work in hurricanes, Joe Average was just going to take a Pulitzer prize winning image and so Canon (or whoever) has to compensate him and his family for the loss. Your compensation awards, amounts and culture, and subsequent insuring against, is a terrible drain on your economy. Why are medical costs too high for so many people to afford? One reason is because doctors insurance fees are horrendous (but don't get me started on drug companies). You have over 1,150,000 currently licensed and practicing lawyers, one for every 280 odd people. Does that not strike you as a touch excessive?</p>

<p>If you had bought your 7D in Finland they would have told you it was weatherproof, they would have trusted you to not be stupid and take reasonable precautions and not do things like</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=891451">Michael Young</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 16, 2010; 06:32 p.m.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I'm wondering if 7D owners should bucket test their bodies while they're still under warranty.</p>

</blockquote>

 

 

<p>See what I mean?</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

 

[michael_young3]

<p>Yes, Scott, I do see what you mean. You like to invalidate the argument by attacking the person. You've done so repeatedly in the past, and you continue to do so today. A simple question of whether and how much weather and adversity the touted camera body seals can withstand suddenly isn't so simple. It's all tied into world hunger, nuclear proliferation, and medical costs in America. Somehow.</p>

<p>I'll hold firm that a camera owner should ask what level of performance they can expect from the equipment. They should do so before leaving home, and preferably without testing to destruction through trial and error. It is a simple question. I'll take it from your rants that you, like Canon, have no answer.</p>

<p>As before, Scott, flames and followups to Usenet, please.</p>

 

[martin_engineer]

<p>I remember watching a youtube video where a Pentax K10d was put into a shower and then shown to still be operational. It made me feel more comfortable as a K10d owner to take it out in the rain with weather sealed lenses. <br>

I would ask a brave Canon user to do the same with a 7D, but I might get sued... so please don't put your 7D into the shower.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Michael,</p>

<p><em>"Me thinks you doth protest too much"</em> I did not attack you, I answered your questions, the fact that I quoted you as an example of strange USA consumer attitudes is understandably upsetting. My first post was totally on topic, I showed that "weather resistant" cameras really are weatherproof, and are marketed as such in some countries, I also relayed a useful tip for those who might be a little nervous of some rain.</p>

<p>I wasn't invalidating your argument, it is a just one, I was just trying to show why you can't get the answer to your question. My point was, you will never get a straight answer from these people (Canon in this instance) because you have created a society that makes it counterproductive for them to. In other places where that is not the situation then you can get straight answers. I don't care if you sue me, I would use a 7D in all weather, including monsoons, just like I do all my other cameras, but I don't own one so I don't. If I was using it in a corrosive environment (sea spray) then I'd use the ziplock. That is my answer, it is a valuable as anybody elses, including a faceless email tech that is covering his butt at Canon USA. If your camera dies because you stuck it in a bucket to test its moisture resistance will I buy you another one? No, and neither will Canon USA.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[steven_crist]

<p>I agree Scott. I would consider my 1D bodies "Waterproof" under most normal shooting conditions. It's the lawyers who complicate things. I just look at my car's owners manual and the first 1/3 is nothing but legalese (don't exit the car while still in gear). </p>

[tomwatt]

<blockquote>

<p>... is waterproof and carries a JIS7 rating. This means it can be submerged to a depth of 1 meter for 30 minutes without sustaining any water intrusion damage.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the definition of a waterproof rating for marine electronics. There are even more stringent standards covering deeper depths and longer immersion times, but for most things, that would cover it unless you planned on diving with the camera.</p>

 

[philip_wilson]

<p>Scott - I would not stick any of my 1 series bodies into a bucket of water for 30 seconds never mind thirty minutes. In terms of the 7D and 5DII I suspect that they are really not that far off the EOS 1V as the only real differences are the aopertures on the side for electrical connections, the rear screen, the rotary mode dial and in the case of the 7D the flash.<br>

On the subject of Tort Law I remember reading something last year (I think in the economist or Barrons) that mentioned that Tort Law in the USA had grown at an annual rate of over 7% since 1970 (thus in 2010 it was 15x the 1970) that said the same article suggested that the growth rate had slowed.</p>