There is something that bothers me about that bottom seal on the EM-5. When installing the battery grip I noticed the seal same off very easily. I just checked now by taking the grip off and putting the seal back. It comes off easily. Tried again after seating the seal firmly. Same result, it comes off easily. Tried the same thing on my wife's Nikon camera and it took a deliberate effort to *peel* the seal off. Quite a difference in design. Be careful.

If I did not have the grip I would consider covering the bottom seal with tape to insure it stays in place. It seems like a problem waiting to happen.

I have a Kirk PZ-130 QR plate on mine, and it just happens to cover most of that rubber seal. I did just notice that I can see a bit of daylight under the front of the hot shoe cover if I look from the back of the camera and tilt it slightly down. Makes me wonder just how splash proof the hot shoe cover is.

But considering I melt in the rain, my camera will probably never be put to the test.

__________________
C&C welcomed and encouraged!
PicasaWeb | Flickr | My Ebay FB: twokatmew

so, if you put a grip on the camera, it is not sealed anymore? Kinda defeats the purpose.

For those who do not have the battery grip, installing both parts gives you a bottom plate that does not have any breaches for seals. The seals are to cover ports for electrical connections that are used when you install the grip parts.

If you only install the first part of the grip there is a seal on the bottom that has a cover that comes off as easily as the one on the bare camera. After installing the second part, you are left with something that looks waterproof.

Really happy for you (and us to use you as an example just in case we go through this)...but 2 things bother me...

1. There is a real difference between the seals of the rubber "gaskets" on the bottom of the cams & grips... Some are super tight, some fall right off...

2. The top cover for the hot-shoe doesn't have an rubber seal at all...water can get right under it and onto the contacts...so seems weird that that would be needed. Also with the "water resistant" flash attached, I still see that water can get between the contacts...

Just some thoughts.... (Wonder how well the OM-D Pro will be sealed)

__________________
Follow me on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MrKal_El

Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrkal_el/

Something I did when sending mine in was take several detailed pictures of every angle of the camera, including the screen out & angled in varies ways. Just in case they tried to say something about it, I could refer to my pics.

Well,
It looks like you can't do this with the OMD & 12-50.....

__________________
Olympus E-PL5
M. Zuiko 17mm ƒ1.8 | M. Zuiko 17mm ƒ2.8 | M. Zuiko 14-42 II | M. Zuiko 14-150 ED | M. Zuiko 45mm ƒ1.8 ED | M. Zuiko 75mm ƒ1.8 ED | M. Zuiko 75-300 ED II | Leica DG Summilux 25mm ƒ1.4 ASPH | Lumix G Vario 45-200 |

I just curious Mike what color is your OM-D that have water damage?
I try to list all OM-D with QC or water issue and try to see if there's any connection the problem with OM-D color....

My assumption is because the silver OM-D have more demand the factory being rush out to manufacture as much as possible as a result the QC may not be as good as black OM-D which not have that high demand.

At least I have seen another OM-D with rain proof problem like yours. Both covered by Olympus tough. Along with rain proof there are also the problem with non consistent body paint (silver), button loose, the leather part loose (silver), the IBIS unit problem, sensor defect, etc.

__________________
My Gear : EM-5, E-1, EPL-1, + Lumix 20, 14; Fujinon 55; OM 35, 135; mZD 45, 12-50, 14-42, 40-150R; ZD 35, 14-54 mkI, 40-150 mkI

Silver. But if the cap for the battery grip was the problem, then that's not likely to be a body issue.

I have noticed that the rubber is easy to lost, so I put some gaffer tape over the rubber so I can't loose it.