Anonymous
10/28/2025, 11:55:38 PM
No.4478594
>>4478366
Let's take a look
Canon marketing materials:
https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/eos-r1-reliability-durability/
on water
>Drip-proof testing – see the right-hand video below – was used to verify the performance of the EOS R1’s weather seals in conditions that approximate the camera being used in a downpour, or when the camera is placed on damp ground such as when photographing from the sidelines at a football match.
No description of how long the test was conducted for, no description of flow rate, no description of distance of source to test subject, no description of angle.
We get a six-second video clip that appears to match with IPX1 when the camera is facing lens-down.
An IPX5 tested device: Water jets Water projected by a nozzle (6.3 mm (0.25 in)) against enclosure from any direction shall have no harmful effects. Test duration: 1 minute per square meter for at least 3 minutes. Water volume: 12.5 litres per minute Pressure: 30 kPa (4.4 psi) at distance of 3 meters (9.8 ft).
on dust
>Richard shares an example of how the EOS R1 is earning its reputation as a trusted tool for professionals: "I was covering golf in the Middle East, where it was very sandy and dusty. But I had a lot of confidence in the weather sealing on the EOS R1 and the RF lenses I was using. There was no problem in terms of the heat either. The daily temperature was around 40°C, and the EOS R1 kept on firing in conditions where I previously might have had issues with a camera.
Essentially: trust me bro, this guy we paid said it's good. No description of ANY testing at all.
An IP6X tested device: you know the product has been tested against IEC 60529 to show NO dust ingress.
You're retarded
Let's take a look
Canon marketing materials:
https://www.canon-europe.com/pro/stories/eos-r1-reliability-durability/
on water
>Drip-proof testing – see the right-hand video below – was used to verify the performance of the EOS R1’s weather seals in conditions that approximate the camera being used in a downpour, or when the camera is placed on damp ground such as when photographing from the sidelines at a football match.
No description of how long the test was conducted for, no description of flow rate, no description of distance of source to test subject, no description of angle.
We get a six-second video clip that appears to match with IPX1 when the camera is facing lens-down.
An IPX5 tested device: Water jets Water projected by a nozzle (6.3 mm (0.25 in)) against enclosure from any direction shall have no harmful effects. Test duration: 1 minute per square meter for at least 3 minutes. Water volume: 12.5 litres per minute Pressure: 30 kPa (4.4 psi) at distance of 3 meters (9.8 ft).
on dust
>Richard shares an example of how the EOS R1 is earning its reputation as a trusted tool for professionals: "I was covering golf in the Middle East, where it was very sandy and dusty. But I had a lot of confidence in the weather sealing on the EOS R1 and the RF lenses I was using. There was no problem in terms of the heat either. The daily temperature was around 40°C, and the EOS R1 kept on firing in conditions where I previously might have had issues with a camera.
Essentially: trust me bro, this guy we paid said it's good. No description of ANY testing at all.
An IP6X tested device: you know the product has been tested against IEC 60529 to show NO dust ingress.
You're retarded