Weather Sealing betw Oly & Pana lenses & bodies (was: write speed and debris on the lens mount)

Jason Stamper

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Messages
217
No problem, glad to do it. I'll try to get some pictures tomorrow of the mounts from the PL 8-18 and the 100-300 II to illustrate the differences.
I don't know about the technical stuff on this, but I was just in Yellowstone on vacation. At one point I was out shooting in the pouring rain with my E-M1 II and Panny 100-300mm II. Everything worked absolutely great, and I had no problems. Not sure how sharp the pictures came out with the dark skies and pouring rain, but there was no problems with weather sealing. Incidentally I found out that buffalo can swim! Actually there were three buffalo that started out across the rain swollen river, two made it across, and one had to turn back. This was handheld at 300mm wide open at f5.6 1/320th of a second.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,548
Location
Anchorage
I figured I'd chime in and update this thread, since there's some potentially interesting updates.

I used an Olympus E-M1 II, and the 12-100 PRO, PL 8-18, and 100-300 II. A summary of my findings are below.

Olympus E-M1 II:
  • Mount OD: 54.25 - 54.50 mm
  • OD of screw holes: 52mm
  • ID of screw holes: 45mm
Olympus 12-100 PRO:
  • OD of gasket: 54.5 mm
  • Gasket width: 0.75mm (53mm ID of gasket)
PanaLeica 8-18:
  • OD of gasket: 52.5mm
  • Gasket width: 0.75mm (51mm ID of gasket)
Panasonic 100-300 II:
  • OD of gasket: 54.5mm
  • Gasket width: 1.25mm (52mm ID of gasket)

Assuming these measurements are correct (and that's a big assumption, since any measurement of elastomeric materials should be done via optical methods and not via physical contact like calipers), things are a bit interesting:
  • The 12-100 works perfectly fine on the E-M1 II. The OD of the gasket on the lens is just about the same diameter of the lens mount OD, the width of the "seal" is ~ 0.75mm per side, and the ID of the seal stops before we get to the edge of the screw holes on the mount.
  • The PL 8-18 may create a seal at the lens mount, but it's going to be pretty close. Assuming my measurements are correct, there's only ~0.25mm of sealing per side, which really isn't a lot. That may increase a bit assuming the gasket "squishes" when mounted, but it's not a lot. This is what had people concerned about Panasonic lenses on Olympus bodies.
  • The 100-300 II is a bit of a different animal. The OD of this gasket is the same as that of the Olympus 12-100 PRO, 2mm wider than PL 8-18. Additionally, it is 0.5mm thicker per side than the Olympus gasket, meaning that the ID of the gasket slightly overlaps the OD of the screw holes on the mount. The benefit of this is that it gives a MUCH more substantial seal on the mount of the camera.

Based on this information, it may be that Panasonic lenses have better weather sealing on Olympus camera bodies than the PanaLeica lenses do. When comparing a Panasonic lens against a PanaLeica lens, it's readily apparent the difference in the weather seal on the mount, where the Panasonic seal is much thicker/wider.

Not certain how many people care, but I wanted to chime in and update this thread with this information, in case anybody was curious. I found the difference between Panasonic and PanaLeica lenses very interesting.
thanks for the data.

I am still just amazed by the huge differences not just between brands but within brands as well. Personally I would never trust cross-brand weather sealing and would be highly suspect about using anything Panasonic.
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,963
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
thanks for the data.

I am still just amazed by the huge differences not just between brands but within brands as well. Personally I would never trust cross-brand weather sealing and would be highly suspect about using anything Panasonic.
Based on the measurements, I don’t really have concerns about the 100-300 II on any Olympus body, because the lens gasket is so similar is size to the Olympus PRO lenses.

What is more worrisome is the gasket on PanaLeica lenses. Why it is so different from the normal Panasonic mount?

Either way, the PL 8-18 offers enough advantages that I am content with it, having made the switch from the 7-14 PRO, but if I’ll be using it in severe conditions, I’ll just throw my rain jacket on it as an extra layer of protection.
 

Bidkev

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 5, 2018
Messages
4,906
Location
Brisbane Australia from Blackpool UK 25yrs ago
Umm... cool?
Is it not? Then my apologies if not but I thought it might be relevant in the context of this thread (weather sealing)? Obviously some folk have issues with it, I never have because I have never trusted manufacturer's claims. It's like those diver's watches supposedly tested to 100 metres...........absolutely useless when stepping out of a hot shower into a cold bathroom and you can never remove the condensation on the inside watch face thereafter. It's simple really, keep the weather off and you don't have to worry about it's effects or weather sealing.
 

Phocal

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
5,548
Location
Anchorage
absolutely useless when stepping out of a hot shower into a cold bathroom and you can never remove the condensation on the inside watch face thereafter. It's simple really, keep the weather off and you don't have to worry about it's effects or weather sealing.
That condensation is actually because of the sealing. The inside of the watches don't contain a perfectly dry gas (either do the insides of cameras or lenses) and the condensation is result of the difference between the inside environment of the watch and the outside environment. I would be more suspect if the watch didn't fog up when going from one extreme to another. My weather sealed cameras get condensation on the inside (particularly the viewfinder) fairly often when out in really humid environments and I would be more worried about the integrity of my sealing if they didn't.
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,963
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
Is it not? Then my apologies if not but I thought it might be relevant in the context of this thread (weather sealing)? Obviously some folk have issues with it, I never have because I have never trusted manufacturer's claims. It's like those diver's watches supposedly tested to 100 metres...........absolutely useless when stepping out of a hot shower into a cold bathroom and you can never remove the condensation on the inside watch face thereafter. It's simple really, keep the weather off and you don't have to worry about it's effects or weather sealing.
The context of this thread is looking at dimensions of camera mounts, lens mounts, and gaskets, to get an idea of which combinations of lens/body would give some level of confidence in weather sealing. The context of this thread is not to question the validity of weather sealing as a whole.

Also, I'm not certain how you discussion about a wrist watch going from a hot, humid environment in to a cold environment has any implication in this discussion about weather sealing. Even with weather sealed gear, it's recommended to not exposure the gear to sudden changes in environments.

If you want to carry around and shoot with a plastic bag on your gear all the time in inclimate weather, more power to you. But that's a different discussion entirely relative to what's being discussed in this thread.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2013
Messages
1,471
Location
Colorado
The context of this thread is looking at dimensions of camera mounts, lens mounts, and gaskets, to get an idea of which combinations of lens/body would give some level of confidence in weather sealing. The context of this thread is not to question the validity of weather sealing as a whole.

Also, I'm not certain how you discussion about a wrist watch going from a hot, humid environment in to a cold environment has any implication in this discussion about weather sealing. Even with weather sealed gear, it's recommended to not exposure the gear to sudden changes in environments.

If you want to carry around and shoot with a plastic bag on your gear all the time in inclimate weather, more power to you. But that's a different discussion entirely relative to what's being discussed in this thread.
To be fair, I think that's why he started the other thread.
 

retiredfromlife

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 15, 2016
Messages
4,030
Location
Sydney, Australia
I now have an E-M1 and 12-40 from Olympus, as well as an 8-18, 100-300 II and 35-100 f/2.8 II from Panasonic. Love to be able to contribute but I don't have any calipers... any ideas?
Do you have "Jaycar" where you are? They sell a digital caliper made of carbon fiber that is accurate to 0.1 mm good enough for this sort of thing plus not being metal safer to use on these very thin seals, no scratches. also metal ones very cheap these days. If you buy one get a spare CR2032 battery as they don't last long I find.
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,963
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
The 35-100 f/2.8 II gasket looks more like the Olympus and 100-300 II one than the 8-18 one.
Very interesting. I wonder how the 35-100 I looks? It's very odd that the PanaLeica lenses have a different gasket geometry.
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,963
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
Another update to this saga:

My interest is piqued with the PanaLeica 200/2.8, as a potential replacement for the Nikon 300/2.8 VR I'm current using with my Nikon D500 (assuming FW 2.X on the E-M1 II is good enough for my needs to replace the D500 for motorsports).

If you look at the images I posed above, the PL 8-18 has a very different lens mount than the 100-300 II. Not only is the gasket geometry different with the PL 8-18, but the mount only uses 3 screws, equally spaced 120° apart from one another. The 100-300 II on the other hand uses 4 screws, equally spaced 90° apart from one another (along with using a much more robust gasket IMO).

Looking at images of the PL 200/2.8, it appears as if Panasonic realized their mistake with earlier PanaLeica lenses, as the lens mount of the 200/2.8 appears to use 4 screws (similar to the 100-300 II), as well as having a nice, wide gasket (similar to the 100-300 II). The image below is from ePhotoZine's review of the lens, but gives a good view of the lens mount.

I'll be out shooting some motorsports this weekend, where I plan to compare the E-M1 II to the D500 (shooting motorcycle racing this time, rather than autocross) using the 40-150 PRO and 70-200 2.8. Assuming the E-M1 II doesn't disappoint, I may look at renting the 200/2.8 for some motorsports in early July, which if I do I'll make sure to measure the gasket on it while I have it.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Wasabi Bob

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Nov 23, 2010
Messages
1,112
Location
New Jersey - United States
Something that's a bit weird... Panasonic released the first weather resistant lens (12-35) early in 2012, but didn't have a weather resistant body until a year later (GH3). In the mean time everybody would have been using them on the E-M5...
I'm not an Oly shooter, but I've been following this discussion. Oly's cameras have an IPX 2 rating which Olympus confirmed for me. When I asked them, 3 times, how they can claim "weather sealed" they refuse to respond. Panasonic has only used the term Splash Proof and clearly states that "Splash Proof is an added level of protection against moisture, but it does not guarantee that any direct contact with water will not cause damage to the camera." They have not used the term weather sealed. It seems many are concerned about a level of resistance that the specs do not verify.
 

SpecFoto

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
633
Location
So Cal Desert
Real Name
Jim
Oly's cameras have an IPX 2 rating which Olympus confirmed for me. When I asked them, 3 times, how they can claim "weather sealed" they refuse to respond. Panasonic has only used the term Splash Proof and clearly states that "Splash Proof is an added level of protection against moisture, but it does not guarantee that any direct contact with water will not cause damage to the camera." They have not used the term weather sealed. It seems many are concerned about a level of resistance that the specs do not verify.
Because of this thread, I was looking closely at my G9 and the 3 Olympus f2.8 Pro zoom lenses I have, 7-14, 12-40 and 40-150. All 3 have the term "Splash Proof" on the bottom of the lens, next to the place where they also give the minimum focusing distance. So marketing BS beside, it seems Olympus is not rating their lenses any different that Panasonic.

thanks for the data.
I am still just amazed by the huge differences not just between brands but within brands as well. Personally I would never trust cross-brand weather sealing and would be highly suspect about using anything Panasonic.
I don't have calipers, but using a engineering scale I was able to see that the diameter of the sealing gasket on my 3 Olympus Pro lenses falls just outside the raised central (shiny) mounting area on the face of the G9. As the gasket is slightly raised on all 3 lenses, it seems to me that the gasket mates up against the side of the raised central mounting area, and is not being compressed against the face of it. When you look closely at the side gap between the lens and camera, what I see mostly is the black sealing ring of the lens and just a small sliver of the side of the raised mounting area. How good this may actually weather seal is unknown to me, as it hasn't rained here in the 5 months I have had the G9.

In addition to what @Phocal said, why is that the camera face does has not gasketing. If you look at both the EM1 and G9 line drawings of all the weather sealing, how can they not have a gasket on the face of the camera to seal up against any lens, especially given all the variances in the sealing gasket as detailed in this thread?
 
Last edited:

SpecFoto

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
633
Location
So Cal Desert
Real Name
Jim
Looking at images of the PL 200/2.8, it appears as if Panasonic realized their mistake with earlier PanaLeica lenses, as the lens mount of the 200/2.8 appears to use 4 screws (similar to the 100-300 II), as well as having a nice, wide gasket (similar to the 100-300 II). The image below is from ePhotoZine's review of the lens, but gives a good view of the lens mount.

View attachment 655966
Did you have to post such big, beautiful pic of that lens? My G9 is starving for a longer tele.......;)
 

DynaSport

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
3,018
Real Name
Dan
A lot of conjecture with little actual knowledge because Olympus and Panasonic don’t provide very much information about their weather sealing and whether it is applicable across brands. But I wonder if the assumption many are making that the rubber seals should mate up against each other is accurate. I have done very little mechanical work, but even changing the oil in the car reveals that in that instance the rubber gasket mates against metal, not another rubber gasket. Makes me think that perhaps the concerns are misplaced.
 

ijm5012

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Oct 2, 2013
Messages
7,963
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Real Name
Ian
A lot of conjecture with little actual knowledge because Olympus and Panasonic don’t provide very much information about their weather sealing and whether it is applicable across brands. But I wonder if the assumption many are making that the rubber seals should mate up against each other is accurate. I have done very little mechanical work, but even changing the oil in the car reveals that in that instance the rubber gasket mates against metal, not another rubber gasket. Makes me think that perhaps the concerns are misplaced.
Not really sure what you’re talking about, but there is no gasket on the body mount, only around the lens mount. The seal is created when the gasket around the lens mount is compressed against the metal of the body mount.

Where the concern comes in is whether or not the gasket on the lens runs over the screw holes on the body mount, which could act as a leak-path for fluid.

I’m not entirely certain where you got this idea of gasket-meeting-gasket, but that is not what we’re discussing here at all. We’re talking about the diameters and thicknesses of the gaskets on the lens mounts, relative to features on the body mounts of different cameras.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom