Anonymous
10/27/2025, 10:37:37 PM
No.4478163
>>4478147
That's because 'weather sealing' doesn't mean anything. But we already have another weather sealing vs. IP rating thread up, and the retards in there come out of the woodwork to argue AGAINST having some sort of specification to compare relative ingress protection levels as marketing hype. This, of course, makes it EASIER for marketers to justify not adequately sealing to an expected level of performance, as 'weather sealing' can mean anything from IPX3 to IPX8. Light mist overhead to submerged underwater for an appreciable length of time. We put some rubber gaskets around the lens interface? It's weather sealed. We made a hermetically sealed chamber for the brains and redundant seals on the lens mount and all buttons? It's weather sealed. The retards in that thread argue that even having an IP rating on the spec sheet is just marketing consumerist bait. It gives you an expectation of how the device might perform in real-world conditions. They also seem to think that it would drive up warranty claims. It won't. Companies can all still deny warranty claims for water damaged goods. All they have to do is provide testing that shows their camera passed the particular IP level that was claimed.
It's like expensive watches. A Rolex can claim 100m of water resistance, but does that mean you should take it to 100m and swim around, shaking it everywhere? No. But you can expect a dip in a pool to not cause an issue when new. If you get it wet doing whatever the fuck and try to claim warranty, Rolex will laugh in your face and hand you a hefty repair quote.
Also important is age of the device, as gaskets degrade over time and a 5 year old camera will not perform the same as a brand new one of the same IP rating unless the gaskets are changed. Which is why you're right in avoiding trusting any electronics claiming to be weather sealed--they may be under a controlled static lab setting, but agitation, damage, and other factors in the real reduce performance.
That's because 'weather sealing' doesn't mean anything. But we already have another weather sealing vs. IP rating thread up, and the retards in there come out of the woodwork to argue AGAINST having some sort of specification to compare relative ingress protection levels as marketing hype. This, of course, makes it EASIER for marketers to justify not adequately sealing to an expected level of performance, as 'weather sealing' can mean anything from IPX3 to IPX8. Light mist overhead to submerged underwater for an appreciable length of time. We put some rubber gaskets around the lens interface? It's weather sealed. We made a hermetically sealed chamber for the brains and redundant seals on the lens mount and all buttons? It's weather sealed. The retards in that thread argue that even having an IP rating on the spec sheet is just marketing consumerist bait. It gives you an expectation of how the device might perform in real-world conditions. They also seem to think that it would drive up warranty claims. It won't. Companies can all still deny warranty claims for water damaged goods. All they have to do is provide testing that shows their camera passed the particular IP level that was claimed.
It's like expensive watches. A Rolex can claim 100m of water resistance, but does that mean you should take it to 100m and swim around, shaking it everywhere? No. But you can expect a dip in a pool to not cause an issue when new. If you get it wet doing whatever the fuck and try to claim warranty, Rolex will laugh in your face and hand you a hefty repair quote.
Also important is age of the device, as gaskets degrade over time and a 5 year old camera will not perform the same as a brand new one of the same IP rating unless the gaskets are changed. Which is why you're right in avoiding trusting any electronics claiming to be weather sealed--they may be under a controlled static lab setting, but agitation, damage, and other factors in the real reduce performance.