I just noticed the fine print on the spec page:

 

This camera is designed for optimal dust and moisture resistance, but is not waterproof or splashproof. For FE lenses only.

 

Obviously that leaves us with some unanswered questions.

 

"optimal dust and moisture resistance", is that the same as what we'd normally call "weatherproof"?  Or is it not good enough to earn that name?  I notice that Amazon, and B&H are both using the phrase "Weather-Sealed Magnesium Alloy Body", but Sony doesn't use that phrase anywhere.  So which is it?  Or is there no difference?

 

"Not waterproof or splashproof" - that bit is fine, no surprises there.

 

"For FE lenses only" - Really?  That seems like a detail that should be made more clear and elaborated on.  So the camera is not moisture resistant when used with any APS-C lens?  I guess that means FE lenses have a better seal around the lens mount?

This is now the standard wording used by Sony and even that has little meaning.

 

The change from saying 'weather resistant' in connection with the sealing came not long after the first release of the A7 series, where they used the claim in the marketing.

However, I think there were quite a few claims made under warranty and Sony refused them, citing 'water ingress'. Not surprisingly, there was quite a few complaints!

Soon after, all mention of 'weather' was dropped from the sales spiel.

 

Personally I suspect there was an inherent flaw in the design of the top dials, allowing water to run down the grooves and enter the body when they were turned; hence the new design.

 

Of course, the problem with addressing any of this is that, despite what we would like to think these phrases mean, they don't have any measurable quality.

After all, what is 'bad weather' and what is a 'splash'? The former could be anything from a very little drizzle, to a monsoon downpour, and a splash could be a few tiny droplets to being hit by a ten foot breaker!

I appreciate that's a bit of an exaggeration, but you can see what I mean.

 

The only definitive measure is IP ratings and I doubt it would be feasible to make cameras like these comply without huge consequences to form and function. Hence the seals they do have in place, but the rather limp claim to protection.

 

With regard to lenses, Sony are probably thinking about the ever growing variety of makes that can be attached of which they have no control.

 

I wish I could be more positive other than to say I don't have too many qualms about getting a little wet, just as long as sensible care and precautions are taken.

I wish I could be more positive other than to say I don't have too many qualms about getting a little wet, just as long as sensible care and precautions are taken.

 

I'd have no qualms about getting wet, except that the manufacturer is not instilling us with much confidence.

By comparison I know I can take my wife's D300, or sometimes I'll rent a D750, out in heavy rain completely unprotected, and those camera's just shrug it off.  I have total confidence in them.

 

Obviously I'd never take the A6000 out in those conditions.  Even though it is my preferred weapon of choice (for the size/weight and burst rate).  But it has no sealing to speak of, so that's why I take something else during those times.  I have a rain cover, but it just makes things more cumbersome, and it doesn't protect against dust.

 

I guess we'll just have to wait and see how well the A6300 stands in those conditions.  I'll be waiting for someone to do a teardown on one before I decide to go with it or not.

Agreed that if there is no IP rating you are just getting marketing. Sony doesn't seem to learn from their mistakes. This is the same company that told users not to get thier water resistant cell phones wet.

 

http://www.greenbot.com/article/2983435/android/dont-use-waterproof-xperia-phones-underwater-sony-says.html

 

Ps I have had a few Sony cameras I was and am fond of. I just hate corporate deceit.