# "weather sealed" != "impervious to salt water"



## chromophore (Feb 5, 2016)

Just read this on PetaPixel:

http://petapixel.com/2016/02/05/shooting-a-winter-storm-killed-my-canon-7d/#more-202201

I don't understand how anyone can be so incredibly stupid. This misconception has been hashed out many times before: "weather-sealed" does not mean that you can let ocean waves hit your camera. Salt water is not rain and it is not weather.

And then, the other mistake is to think that all L lenses are "weather-sealed." Anyone who has owned an 85/1.2L knows that's not true.

To make it even worse, going back and rinsing the body and lens when salt ingress has already occurred, in the misguided belief that (1) tap water doesn't have any dissolved minerals itself; and (2) you can get enough water into the components to rinse away the corrosion?

Finally, sticking the whole thing in bags of rice? WHY do photographers spread around these stupid hacks? A large canister of silica gel put in an airtight, evacuated container with the camera, taking it out and heating it to 325 F to recharge it every 24 hours, will absorb more moisture more quickly than rice.

The repeated implications that his 1D2 survived just fine, therefore the 7D must have inferior sealing, is also galling. The 7D isn't a pro body and it's not expected to have the kind of sealing that a 1-series body needs, but that doesn't mean that it's not "weather-sealed." It just means that Canon sees fit to provide in their flagship bodies a level of sealing that goes above and beyond that needed to guard against damage from typical adverse weather, given the cost and the target market (pro shooters).

Part of the thing that irritates me as a photographer is how personal anecdotes and bad advice get passed around as if they were gospel truth. This guy got exactly what he deserved for his ignorance and misinformation.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 5, 2016)

> I never knew the 70-200mm doesn’t have a rubber seal as I thought it was standard on all L lenses.



Because, you know, I never bothered to actually look at the lens. :

What a moron.


----------



## Harv (Feb 6, 2016)

There is one simple truth in life that will never change..... THERE IS NO CURE FOR STUPID.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 6, 2016)

When mounting electronics on the frigates and trying to get a "weatherproof connection".......

Step 1 - ONLY use very high quality mil-standard circular connectors as everything else leaks.....
Step 2 - use heat shrink tubing over top of the connector.....
step 3 - generously coat the works with silicone seal....
step 4 - hope that it is good enough.... and re-apply the silicone regularly.....

When Canon (or Nikon) comes up with a more weatherproof way to join the lens to the body than that, only then will I believe that the junction is "weatherproof".... and on a lens with an extending element when you zoom it, what part of "air pump" do you not understand? ? ?


----------



## ERHP (Feb 6, 2016)

On my desk at work I have a 5D MK III and 24-105 lens that were dunked in saltwater. They make great show and tell displays at to why we also have dive housings. The zoom on the lens is like one of those rock salt grinder/shaker combos. No electronic parts salvageable... The best part was the story "It wasn't under very long!"


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Feb 6, 2016)

chromophore said:


> A large canister of silica gel put in an airtight, evacuated container with the camera, taking it out and heating it to 325 F to recharge it every 24 hours



I'm not sure taking a camera out of "a large canister of silica gel", then "heating it to 325 F to recharge it every 24 hours" is such a good idea. :  :

I'd personally prefer to keep my cameras out of ovens, but that's just me.  :


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 6, 2016)

IgotGASbadDude said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > A large canister of silica gel put in an airtight, evacuated container with the camera, taking it out and heating it to 325 F to recharge it every 24 hours
> ...


You take the camera out of the silica, then bake the silica to dry it out again, then put the camera back in the silica.... you don't bake the silica with the camera in it.

In this case, it does not matter, with the amount of salt in the camera, it got more than damp.....there was salt water sloshing around inside to leave that much salt behind....


----------



## expatinasia (Feb 6, 2016)

I notice that the 1DX II says "drip proof".

I sweat a lot, and I know that the 1DX does not like salt water, in fact my sweat causes more damage aesthetically than anything else.


----------



## TeT (Feb 6, 2016)

Storms dont kill cameras, idiots kill cameras


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 6, 2016)

I've had this discussion with people in my camera club, and I try to explain it to them as a risk vs. reward thing. Are you really going to get photos that make the risk to your camera worth it? Do you really need to remember the rainy day at the beach?

And then to the really thick headed: Go buy a compact waterproof camera.


----------



## Mogens Hansen (Feb 6, 2016)

chromophore said:


> I don't understand how anyone can be so incredibly stupid. This misconception has been hashed out many times before: "weather-sealed" does not mean that you can let ocean waves hit your camera. Salt water is not rain and it is not weather.



Not to encourage anybody to expose their equipment to salt water, I do have experience in that.
I have been photographing yacht racing for many years using Canon 1D series bodies (1D mkII, 1Ds mkII, two 1Ds mkIII and two 1DX). I have mostly been using the Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS (mkI), which is not (fully) weather sealed, but also 70-200/2.8L IS (mkI) and 70-200/2.8L IS mkII which are weather sealed. When possible I do use UV filters to protect the lenses.
I do try to protect the equipment from water, but sometimes it _will_ be hit by a wave.
Everyday when I get onshore, I wipe all equipment with a damp, clean dishtowel.
I have never had a single failure so far.

One of the events I photographed in 2015 was the World Championship for the Olympic Nacra 17 class (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sailingaarhus/sets/72157655427692796). It was photographed using two 1DX primarily with 300/2.8L IS (mkI) and 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS mkII on the race course.
The weather was quite bad during most of the event. When it was worst I used the Thinktank Hydrophobia rain covers (like https://www.flickr.com/photos/sailingaarhus/18897745314/in/album-72157655427692796/ - at this point the wind was to strong even for these world class athletes). Although the Hydrophobias are excellent, it does make it even harder to photograph these extremely fast boats.
During the final, very intense medalrace, the wind was close to the max limit (https://www.flickr.com/photos/sailingaarhus/19574966062/in/album-72157655427692796/ - the French coaches are cheering as their team approaches the finishing line as World Champions). I had a driver for my RIB boat who could cover me a little. So I chose not to use the raincover, to be able to work faster. But the 1DX with the 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS mkII was soaked in saltwater multiple time (and I dried it with a dishtowel) - the equipment worked absolutely flawless and still does.
By using 2 bodies, I dont have to switch lens - I switch camera. In general I only use one camera at the time.

That's the reason why I, and many yacht photographers, use 1D series bodies.


----------



## Valvebounce (Feb 6, 2016)

Hi Folks. 
This guy is obviously an idiot, but the most important thing I learned from this article is he is the kind of idiot willing to risk not only his life, he also risks the lives of those in the rescue services who might feel compelled to go looking for him when he is washed off by the waves. The rescuers won't hesitate or question if he was stupid, they will just go! 
This is a fact that happens, it has happened at least twice near me that I know within a year or so. 

quotes 
"a few full immersions in sea water from 6 meter high waves,"
"Later when working there I would be fully submerged in giant waves spilling over all the way past the lighthouse stucture."
Just to post a bit on topic, does it have an IP xx rating, if not, it is not weather (or anything) proof!
Be safe folks. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## Maiaibing (Feb 6, 2016)

chromophore said:


> Finally, sticking the whole thing in bags of rice? WHY do photographers spread around these stupid hacks?
> 
> A large canister of silica gel put in an airtight, evacuated container with the camera, taking it out and heating it to 325 F to recharge it every 24 hours, will absorb more moisture more quickly than rice.



Rice is not a hack. Its great practical advice because most people can get hold of large quantities of rice very quickly but not so with silica gel which few people have lying around in any usable quantity. 

We have bags of silica gel in the house, but when my wife dropped her iphone in the toilet she just ran into the kitchen and stuffed the iphone in a plastic bag with lots of rice for 5 days after giving it a quick wipe-off. That iphone is still working 4 years later.

Second - for someone using such blusterous language - I wonder why you seem unaware that silica gel comes in a variety of bags and compounds and has to be treated accordingly when it comes to heating method, temperature and drying time? Many modern silica gel compounds will be ruined at 325 F or the bags will melt if bagged.

You also seem to ignore that re-drying silica gel in an oven takes hours - so the camera will just have to survive while you first oven heat it - then let the silica cool - and finally toss it in again? Seems to me your practical experience is very limited since you suggest re-drying. Replacing is the way to go for those who have the quantity needed.

Of course you could put your camera in a bag of sealed rice while you re-dry your silica gel...


----------



## AlanF (Feb 6, 2016)

There is a website listing stupid idiots who have killed themselves by unthinking folly.

http://www.darwinawards.com/
"The Darwin Awards commemorate individuals who protect our gene pool by making the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives. Darwin Award winners eliminate themselves in an extraordinarily idiotic manner, thereby improving our species' chances of long-term survival."

There should be a parallel site for idiots who needlessly destroy their cameras by their own stupidity.


----------



## chromophore (Feb 6, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > Finally, sticking the whole thing in bags of rice? WHY do photographers spread around these stupid hacks?
> ...



Just because I don't go into every single excruciating detail about how to properly select and use rechargeable silica gel doesn't mean there isn't a way to use it effectively and simply, or that I'm ignorant of its proper usage. I use it all the time in my Pelican cases. You are being rude and attacking me for ranting against this guy for using rice, when it is your fault for assuming that I must be stupid because I haven't published a complete instruction manual on the proper use of silica gel. It isn't rocket science.

Why is rice a bad idea?

Rice is of limited effectiveness. Yes, your own personal anecdote SURELY means that it works better, because obviously, relating one story on an internet forum is ironclad proof it is better. : Rice has a desiccating effect but it is weak; you need large volumes of it to make up for that weakness, and you can't recharge it. Once it starts absorbing moisture--which, by the way, happens while it's sitting in the grocery store--it gets progressively slower at absorbing more moisture.

Another reason why rice is bad is because it is frequently fortified with additional nutrients by powdering it. During transport, it also creates its own dust. A camera is a precision instrument. We talk about the need to avoid dusty conditions; yet it's somehow okay to bury the whole thing in a bag of rice? Yeah, that's really logical. Talk about creating an ideal environment for mold growth.

Finally, where bodies are concerned, most people would put the body cap on if putting the camera in rice. You would not need to do that with a silica gel canister. Note I say "canister." We're not talking about those little packets you find in food products. If you can't tell the difference between the two, then you're either a troll or blind or both. By leaving the body cap off (or in the case of lenses, the rear cap), you are VASTLY increasing the access to the innards of the device. This is far, far better than anything else you can do.

As for proper use of silica gel, since someone clearly needs a lesson:

1. Get three canisters of rechargeable color-indicating silica gel of the non-toxic variety.
2. With a pen, number the canisters 1, 2, 3.
3. Two ziploc bags large enough to hold the device(s) in need of drying plus all the gels.
4. Remove all body or lens caps.
5. Place all of the objects in one bag. Push or squeeze excess air out of the bag and seal it.
6. Place that bag inside the second ziploc bag, and seal that one.
7. Wait until the color indicator changes, or 24 hours, whichever comes sooner.
8. Remove canister 1, and recharge it in an oven according to the gel manufacturer's directions.
9. After the gel has cooled down enough to handle, replace it and rotate out canister 2.
10. Do the same with canister 3. The rotation schedule should be evenly spaced, say every 8, 12, or 24 hours depending on how wet the device is. Repeat as necessary.


----------



## George D. (Feb 6, 2016)

_"Waves hitting the pier. Later when working there I would be fully submerged in giant waves spilling over all the way past the lighthouse structure"
_
If you expect waves to splash on your camera then you seek an underwater housing not weathersealed. 

Or quit your DSLR and get Olympus Tough.


----------



## Maiaibing (Feb 6, 2016)

chromophore said:


> Just because I don't go into every single excruciating detail about how to properly select and use rechargeable silica gel doesn't mean there isn't a way to use it effectively and simply, or that I'm ignorant of its proper usage.



Maybe. But you surely made us sit guessing with your "advice".


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Feb 6, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> IgotGASbadDude said:
> 
> 
> > chromophore said:
> ...



Someone needs to get his sarcasm meter checked 

Did you really miss the 6 winky faces and rolly eyes? Those were supposed to tell you I was being sarcastic.

An besides, we all know you put the camera in the oven at 350 F. 325 F isn't hot enough to dry the moisture. ???


----------



## rfdesigner (Feb 6, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> When mounting electronics on the frigates and trying to get a "weatherproof connection".......
> 
> Step 1 - ONLY use very high quality mil-standard circular connectors as everything else leaks.....
> Step 2 - use heat shrink tubing over top of the connector.....
> ...



sounds about right. But I only use heat shrink with glue inside it, the plain stuff wicks fluids.

in the photogs case I'd have used a propper bag affair to go over the whole lot.. and counted myself dumb if I'd allowed water to get in.

Now I have had dew dripping off the old 30d with no problems.. but that's dew, which is the kindest form of water.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 6, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> But I only use heat shrink with glue inside it, the plain stuff wicks fluids.


That's the stuff! It's worth it's weight in gold.... until you have to take it off 



rfdesigner said:


> in the photogs case I'd have used a propper bag affair to go over the whole lot.. and counted myself dumb if I'd allowed water to get in.
> 
> Now I have had dew dripping off the old 30d with no problems.. but that's dew, which is the kindest form of water.


It's things like that, that I got myself a waterproof P/S for.... When the spray is flying, the fog is thick, or the rain is driving, you don't need an expensive DSLR with big lenses because you don't have enough visibility to warrant them.... and besides, even with a 1DX and Canon's best sealed lens, you can't hold the camera underwater and take a selfie....well, ok...., can't take a second selfie......


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 6, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> When mounting electronics on the frigates and trying to get a "weatherproof connection".......
> 
> Step 1 - ONLY use very high quality mil-standard circular connectors as everything else leaks.....
> Step 2 - use heat shrink tubing over top of the connector.....
> ...



That doesn't really explain the Nikonos series of interchangeable lens waterproof cameras, or the AW1, or indeed the RS, a true waterproof interchangeable lens SLR.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 6, 2016)

IgotGASbadDude said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > IgotGASbadDude said:
> ...


DOH!!!!!!!

Good thing I didn't go with my first response, which was to add 2 cups of flour, 1/2 cup of icing sugar, 1 cup of butter, and 1/4 tsp of salt, cut out to the shape of little cameras, and place in the oven with your camera at 325 degrees for 22 minutes so that the exercise will not be a total loss  On second thought, that would have been better.....


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 6, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > When mounting electronics on the frigates and trying to get a "weatherproof connection".......
> ...


I knew someone would say that 

I used to have a Nikonos IV. What a fantastic camera! Should never have let it get away from me....


----------



## Bennymiata (Feb 6, 2016)

Putting your camera or any other electronic components in a dessicant to try and get rid of salt water is just a waste of time.
You HAVE to get rid of the salt, otherwise corrosion will not be stopped.

If your camera or phone etc has has a good dunking in salt water, you need to wash it out with demineralised water, then take it apart and gently wipe dry with tissues or a soft cloth and leave to air dry.

If you don't wash out the salt, no amount of dessicant will help.

The salt will start oxidising all the connections on the circuit boards within minutes, so fast action is required.


----------



## chromophore (Feb 7, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > Just because I don't go into every single excruciating detail about how to properly select and use rechargeable silica gel doesn't mean there isn't a way to use it effectively and simply, or that I'm ignorant of its proper usage.
> ...



The only person that was left guessing was you. Don't presume that just because you are ignorant, that everyone else must be as well.


----------



## chromophore (Feb 7, 2016)

Bennymiata said:


> Putting your camera or any other electronic components in a dessicant to try and get rid of salt water is just a waste of time.
> You HAVE to get rid of the salt, otherwise corrosion will not be stopped.
> 
> If your camera or phone etc has has a good dunking in salt water, you need to wash it out with demineralised water, then take it apart and gently wipe dry with tissues or a soft cloth and leave to air dry.
> ...



Exactly, which is why that guy's attempts at salvaging his gear was so obviously futile. Salt water is death to cameras and other electronics.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 7, 2016)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Folks.
> This guy is obviously an idiot, but the most important thing I learned from this article is he is the kind of idiot willing to risk not only his life, he also risks the lives of those in the rescue services who might feel compelled to go looking for him when he is washed off by the waves. The rescuers won't hesitate or question if he was stupid, they will just go!
> This is a fact that happens, it has happened at least twice near me that I know within a year or so.
> 
> ...


There is a very popular tourist destination back home where the people like to go wandering around over the rocks. A couple of times a year the waves pick one off of the rocks and usually then it's game over. Rescuers will not jump in after them as that's just a fancy way to commit suicide... The signs tell them to stay off of the dark rocks and during storms the police block access to the site, but they keep getting picked off. People have no idea how powerful waves can be, nor do they understand how a rogue wave can come out of nowhere.

No photo is worth your life.


----------



## Valvebounce (Feb 7, 2016)

Hi Don. 
The unfortunate souls locally were walking along the seafront, one walking the dog, I believe another was a tourist watching the sea, it is unlikely anyone jumps in after them here either, but the lifeboat will be launched to attempt a rescue or at least recover the body which is how it usually ends. 

Cheers, Graham. 



Don Haines said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Folks.
> ...


----------



## rfdesigner (Feb 7, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> ....well, ok...., can't take a second selfie......



Lol.. really!

I've used disposable film cameras when I was really concerned in the past.. no electronics, nothing really to go wrong.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Feb 7, 2016)

I read this with interest as I live in Florida and while we don't have the giant rocks for surf to pound on, we do get some pretty interesting weather from time to time. There are a couple of old limestone/reef "outcroppings" on the east coast that can provide some wave/spray/wind shots every so often - nothing huge.

None the less, there are times when I take my gear into the weather. I don't expect my precautions to create a water proof design, it is all about getting the pressure of the water to be minimal when it comes into contact w/ my gear.

I use 2 gallon ziplock bags. Cut a corner just a bit smaller than the lens barrel, stick the lens through band with a couple of strong rubber bands and with a larger elastic strap around my wrist - or tripod head - I am off and going.

Clumsy - you bet, small portable light, yep. I carry 3 bags, etc in my bag at all times - takes tiny space and is there when I need it.

TTFN


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 7, 2016)

rfdesigner said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > ....well, ok...., can't take a second selfie......
> ...


I went to a camera show a few years ago and the most impressive thing I saw was the Olympus booth where they had a big aquarium set up and a bunch of their P/S cameras sitting on the bottom with the fish swimming around them..... They let you take underwater pictures of the fish with them..... Just reach in, grab a camera from the bottom, and shoot away. it really made the point......


----------



## Valvebounce (Feb 7, 2016)

Hi Busted Knuckles. 
I sort of get the did it myself attitude, however why struggle with compromised access when you can get something like this, 
http://www.amazon.com/OP-TECH-USA-Rainsleeve-18-Inch/dp/B000PTFDYO/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1454869180&sr=1-1&keywords=optech+rainsleeve
Cheap enough to have just in case, easy enough to fit quickly, allow access through the downwards facing portal, come in smaller size and one suitable for a flash too. 

Cheers, Graham. 



Busted Knuckles said:


> I read this with interest as I live in Florida and while we don't have the giant rocks for surf to pound on, we do get some pretty interesting weather from time to time. There are a couple of old limestone/reef "outcroppings" on the east coast that can provide some wave/spray/wind shots every so often - nothing huge.
> 
> None the less, there are times when I take my gear into the weather. I don't expect my precautions to create a water proof design, it is all about getting the pressure of the water to be minimal when it comes into contact w/ my gear.
> 
> ...


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Feb 8, 2016)

Unfortunately, unless you have an IP certification, weather sealing and weather sealed mean only what the marketing department wants it to mean.

A weather sealed camera will resist the effects of weather up to the point it doesn't.


----------



## rfdesigner (Feb 8, 2016)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Unfortunately, unless you have an IP certification, weather sealing and weather sealed mean only what the marketing department wants it to mean.
> 
> A weather sealed camera will resist the effects of weather up to the point it doesn't.



agreed, I would suggest good cameras are currently approaching IP54, but not yet meeting it.

I would argue we really want IP65.


----------



## Maiaibing (Feb 10, 2016)

chromophore said:


> Don't presume that just because you are ignorant, that everyone else must be as well.



Nothing to add here. Everyone can read your advice above on the drying temperature and draw their own conclusion on who is "ignorant" about the proper use of silica gel gel.


----------



## chromophore (Feb 10, 2016)

Maiaibing said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > Don't presume that just because you are ignorant, that everyone else must be as well.
> ...



"Silicon gel" LOL. Keep digging yourself deeper, troll.


----------



## Maiaibing (Feb 11, 2016)

chromophore said:


> "Silicon"



Spelling correction: Silica


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 11, 2016)

At Amazon You can get Silica for 10$/lb in 1lb bags, they still come with the moisture meter cards and recharge the same.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 11, 2016)

chromophore said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > chromophore said:
> ...


I thought one got Silicon Gel from plastic surgeons in California.....


----------



## brad-man (Feb 11, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> chromophore said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



That was before. Now they're "Mmmmm-salty!"


----------



## jhpeterson (Feb 11, 2016)

Mogens Hansen said:


> Not to encourage anybody to expose their equipment to salt water, I do have experience in that.
> I have been photographing yacht racing for many years using Canon 1D series bodies (1D mkII, 1Ds mkII, two 1Ds mkIII and two 1DX). I have mostly been using the Canon 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS (mkI), which is not (fully) weather sealed, but also 70-200/2.8L IS (mkI) and 70-200/2.8L IS mkII which are weather sealed. When possible I do use UV filters to protect the lenses.
> I do try to protect the equipment from water, but sometimes it _will_ be hit by a wave.
> Everyday when I get onshore, I wipe all equipment with a damp, clean dishtowel.
> ...


+1
Having been a yachting photographer for a few decades as well, I fully agree with the above poster.
There's no such thing as a waterproof camera, at least for the way we work. I find myself using a 300/2.8 more than any other and typically complement it with both a 70-200/2.8 and a 500/4. An underwater housing for such long lenses not only would be expensive and impractical, but unwieldy to the point we'd seldom be able to get usable photos.
All I can do is minimize the happening of disasters and mitigate the damage when, not if, it occurs. For that reason I stick to 1D series cameras and weather-sealed "L" glass. A wipedown of every piece of gear with a cloth dampened with fresh water then dried with a towel is mandatory after getting ashore.
I've use raincovers when the seas were the worst. While they slow down my work, they do provide one more level of protection, which may mean my gear keeps working in conditions where it may not have otherwise. Perhaps it even lives to see another day.


----------

