>>4397301And it doesnt matter. Very few IP ratings actually say no water gets in under realistic use. Water jets from an angle while no controls are being used? Lol.
Nikon has NO IP RATINGS and their cameras are insanely durable. Early e-m1 models were IP rated and consistently had several controls fail due to water damage because unlike the standard test, buttons were being pressed and camera angle varied. Olympus fixed this later but it wasnt ever part of the IP standard. Obviously the standard is a waste of money and a sack of marketing horseshit.
Just stop being an autist. If most peoples are surviving rain, they are good. Sony a7iv good, sony a7iii bad. Nikon full frame good. Canon pro model good, canon cheap model bad. Olympus m1/m5 good, m10 and epl bad. No fuji can be trusted. If panasonic calls it weather sealed it is. You do not need the government or a contrived standards organization to know this. And you would not know it with them anyways because their only real customers are samsapple.
>>4397314Is this purse/backpack coper whose fuji would die if exposed to water for more than 5 minutes?
Again no one else has a problem, the closest is sony continuing to lie because their older models are still in production.
>>4397327That phrase? I see it tossed around by fujislugs and the snoys. No one else. Know why?
When nikon, canon, olympus, and panasonic call it weather sealed, they are not lying like fooljifail. Their internal standards are BETTER than IP ratings. This is widely known.
An IP rating is just another company’s standard, bought by still more companies, and mostly exists to be a marketing line which is why the actual tests dont represent real use
Nikon/canon internal standards for weather sealing exist to maintain trust in their brand and have been CONSISTENTLY trustworthy.
Unlike fujifilm, who is lying.
And unlike sony, who is still lying about their older models and a lot of lenses
