5D in the rain

rutt · October 31, 2005

I read Michael Reichmann's field report on the 5D pretty carefully and hung on every word. In particular there is a section which contains this nugget of wisdom:

The Canon 5D is a typical prosumer camera in terms of weather sealing and build quality. I would therefore expect that photographers will be able to shoot in conditions where the photographer will give up long before the camera does.

He goes on to amplify and elaborate. So, fine, I thought, I'll stop worrying about this too much. And I haven't, particulary in the wettest October on record in New England. I just make sure to wipe it off and as it wasn't a problem, I got braver.

Then last weekend I went downtown for a little photojournalism and this "mixture of snow and rain" was coming down pretty hard. I was in the groove though, photographically speaking, and guided by Reichmann, I though I'll give up long before the camera. The only concession was to drop into a pub and grab some napkins to get the water off the front of the lens (my cotton shirt wasn't working.)

Things were fine unti they suddenly weren't fine at all. Just after I shot the state house in the snow, and was getting ready to dismount, the camera stopped working. It wouldn't AF. It said "Err" when I did get it to shoot, and the shutter staid upen until I turned off the camera. Not good, I thought, I drowned the thing.

After riding home in the car, it did seem better. It would in fact AF and also shoot. But what shots:

I found this one particularly disturbing.

Good thing I bought it from FotoCare, I thought. Jeff Hirsch, has always been a great interface with Canon service. But sigh, such a sweet new camera and I drowned it.

The next morning, it was no better, so I really resigned to losing it for a good long time and possibly having to pay a hefty repair bill. But just a few hours later, I tried one more time and it just worked.

So it seems to have just dried out. So did I, but it took me much less time. I'd say this shows that Reichmann is wrong about how stupid a photograper can be, eh? Or maybe he is right in that the camera did dry out and start working again.

pathfinder · October 31, 2005

Your sensor looks like it needs some seriuos cleaning. I think very moist conditions tend to carry gung onto the sensor. The dirtiest my sensor ever was was after shooting an airshow right after a heavy rain. The camera did not get wet - I was protected by a tent. It was a sealed camera too - 1DMkll but a 100-440 trombone air pump of a lens.

I think we have to give serious thought to the weather sealing on our portable digital computers ( DSLRS) that are carried from very warm dry places like our homes in winter, to very cold wet places like a snow storm or vice versa. I know Reichman shoots in way below zero conditions, but he also seals his camera in a heavy plastic bag when he returns to a warm humid environment until it is thoroughly rewarmed. He's a very smart fellow.

My experience. I was shooting on Mackinac Island a few weeks ago with my spouse, and 300zx and gluwater. We had been walking outside for several hours in about 40 degree weather, when we came across the butterfly pavillion where the temp is about 80+ degrees and the humidity is almost as high. My three companion were all shooting with 20D's as was I. Nightingale had a Canon 28-135 IS - NON- sealed lens. 300zx had a Tamron 28-75 DI NON-SEALED, and gluwater had another Canon lens. All three lenses became opalescent from water on the outside lens elelments, AND inside of the lens elements and the front surface mirrors. NOT A GOOD THING. It must have taken over and hour for them to dry out and return to function. I wonder if they had humidity on their sensors as well??

Why do we buy L glass?? I was shooting with a Canon 135 f2 L that is sealed. The front element did get fogged on front of the lens - a few moments under the fan in the butterfly room, and bingo - I was dry and shooting butterflies. I did not get any moisture inside my lens OR my camera ( Same 20D body as Nightingale had). It was an interesting lesson for all of us - I think we need to pay more attention to weather sealing - I think this is MUCH more important than it ever was for film cameras. The manufacturers want to sell their cameras so I don't think they will make a lot of emphasis on care in this regard. But read their environmental statements that come with the manuals. They are much more cautious.

marlof · November 1, 2005

In fact, weather sealing was one of the things that sold me on my Olympus E-1 and the weather sealed 14-54 and 50-200, since I live in quite a wet place myself. Although I'm still perfectly aware that I have very expensive electronic equipment out in the open, and am not completely at ease with that, I do have experienced that the weather sealing does work.

As I stated on the first posts on the 5D, I didn't like the fact that a camera in that market segment did not have weather sealing. In my opinion, that is an oversight, just as I think that apart from the entry level lenses, weather sealing should be a requirement in the more expensive lenses. Nikon seems to be partially there. I found it an interesting comment in DPreview's preview on the upcoming Nikon D200 that it includes some basic sealing, as around the compact flash compartment door etc. Phil Askey did comment that the weather sealing is only as good as its weakest link, stating that many of the recently introduced Nikon lenses do not have a rubber ring around the mount.

Not having weather sealing wouldn't stop me from getting an otherwise great camera or lens, but to me the weather sealing is a selling point.

Nir · November 1, 2005

Rutt,

Reading your post I felt a throbing sensation in my head as my blood pressure began rising.

Seeing the example shots I began getting chest pains (

)

Boy am I glad this story has a happy end!! Could have ended in ER for me.

rutt · November 1, 2005

pathfinder wrote:

I know Reichman shoots in way below zero conditions, but he also seals his camera in a heavy plastic bag when he returns to a warm humid environment until it is thoroughly rewarmed. He's a very smart fellow.

I know that, so I trusted his advice about letting the camera get wet. He said I'd give up long before it would. Maybe I'm just a lot dumber than he is and don't know enough to come in out of the rain.

rutt · November 1, 2005

Nir wrote:

Rutt,

Reading your post I felt a throbing sensation in my head as my blood pressure began rising.

Seeing the example shots I began getting chest pains ( )

Boy am I glad this story has a happy end!! Could have ended in ER for me.

The story had its intended effect on you.

Andy · November 1, 2005

great post, rutt - thanks for taking the time!

ian408 · November 1, 2005

Thanks for the report John. When I held the camera, I really thought it might
be more weather resistent. Oh well.

Ian

Sam · November 1, 2005

Im now in the process of patenting a device that will alow a photograpfer to shoot in the rain. This device would be attached to the photographer's back to free both hands.

I am thinking of calling it an the back strapped umbrella.

A variation on this would be a minibrella. This could be attached to the camera.

Or you if you can't wait you could go to B&H and buy one of those ugly plastc bags.

:

Sam

ScottMcLeod · November 1, 2005

Sam wrote:

Im now in the process of patenting a device that will alow a photograpfer to shoot in the rain. This device would be attached to the photographer's back to free both hands.

I am thinking of calling it an the back strapped umbrella.

A variation on this would be a minibrella. This could be attached to the camera.

Or you if you can't wait you could go to B&H and buy one of those ugly plastc bags. :

Sam

Let us know! I think many people would definitely eat it up.

One could argue that it's already kinda been invented though... remember those umbrella-hats?

Flagstaff434 · November 1, 2005

Some of us just don't know when to get out of the rain
Isn't it possible some people's downpour is another's drizzle? If it cost's more than $1,000 you should probably do something to protect it in spite of the claims.

rutt · November 1, 2005

Flagstaff434 wrote:

Isn't it possible some people's downpour is another's drizzle? If it cost's more than $1,000 you should probably do something to protect it in spite of the claims.

I've always tried to be careful before; Reichmann's article just make me think it was a nonissue. I figured he'd know if anybody would. You should read that paragraph if you haven't. You'd take your new camera out in the rain, too.

Chase · November 2, 2005

rutt wrote:

I've always tried to be careful before; Reichmann's article just make me think it was a nonissue. I figured he'd know if anybody would. You should read that paragraph if you haven't. You'd take your new camera out in the rain, too.

I dont mean to sound insulting......but this is some kind of joke, right?

Yes, I would take my brand new 3000 dollar expensive, un weather sealed (explicitly stated in the manual or wherever) electronic device out into the rain just based on one guys review. Canon doesnt put "secret" weatherproofing on their cameras. If it is weather sealed, they will make a big deal about it. Water + electronics are not good friends. Just consider yourself lucky that the camera is still working.

marlof · November 2, 2005

I don't know about that, Chase. When a manufacturer puts a claim on a device like "weatherproof", they'll have to back that claim up. But still, some cameras might be able to withstand a little abuse in bad weather, even if the manufacturer doesn't claim it to be weatherproof. If I'd had read in an article by a respected reviewer that my camera was one of those, like Rutt I'd worry a bit less about it. But never mind all of that, I'm just plain happy for Rutt that the camera went back to functioning normal after some time, and that he won't have to part with it for some time.

ian408 · November 2, 2005

I think Chase has a valid point. But in rutt's defence, I would be inclined to
think the body were more resistant than it is (with my limited exposure to
the body). I also know that one of the biggest differences between the 5d
and 1d is water resistance.

Ian

rutt · November 2, 2005

I plead guilty as charged to being stupid. It isn't even the stupidest thing I ever did and probably I'll do even stupider stuff in the future. I'll be more than happy if my stupidity only results in damage to my own fungible possessions.

In my defense, it wasn't actually raining when I went; it took me a while to get there; and once I did get there I was very involved in shooting. As it turns out, I love the shots I got. So probably I was just using Reichmann as an excuse for staying out there. I'll fashion something with a plastic bag and keep in my pocket for next time. Or maybe I'll stick to my 1DMII if the weather is at all uncertain. Having that 24-70 really be 24 insteead of 32 was a big plus on this outing, though.

Chase wrote:

I dont mean to sound insulting......but this is some kind of joke, right?

Chase · November 4, 2005

rutt wrote:

I plead guilty as charged to being stupid. It isn't even the stupidest thing I ever did and probably I'll do even stupider stuff in the future. I'll be more than happy if my stupidity only results in damage to my own fungible possessions.

In my defense, it wasn't actually raining when I went; it took me a while to get there; and once I did get there I was very involved in shooting. As it turns out, I love the shots I got. So probably I was just using Reichmann as an excuse for staying out there. I'll fashion something with a plastic bag and keep in my pocket for next time. Or maybe I'll stick to my 1DMII if the weather is at all uncertain. Having that 24-70 really be 24 insteead of 32 was a big plus on this outing, though.

The important thing is that you learned and that it wasnt a very expensive mistake.

5D in the rain

Comments