I would trust the Lensrentals comparison, but the fact that one is better than the other does not indicate there will be a problem. Additionally, to be technical, one would need to define weather sealing against what. For instance, is it rain, humidity, water from underneath, etc. My hunch would be some are better sealed in some areas but not as well in others. The suggestion to reach out to the two Sony ambassadors as one can't get much more out there than Paul Nicklen. Reaching out to Steve Perry is a good idea and I'd recommend Mark Smith as another reference who I'd trust (search for his bird photography on Youtube).

I guess for me, I'm sure there are better sealed cameras than my Sony A1 (and a9ii, a99ii, a99, a700 and a100 before it), but I haven't had a problem nor have the majority whom I've followed or read. From my perspective it's more of a theoretical problem than a real one. Finally, I have no interest in an extended warranty as I prefer to insure all of my equipment for all damage, loss or theft, including water damage.

I think what you are asking goes beyond the amateur level. I was fine with my a7riii in a dripping ice cave in Iceland, but you are looking for reliability over an extended period and a difficult environment. My suggestion would be to reach out to Sony Ambassadors, https://alphauniverse.com/ambassadors/ like Renan Ozturk or Paul Nicklen. They depend on their gear and spend extensive time in difficult environments, and are more likely to be using the new A1. Good luck, this goes way beyond bucket lists, more like dream fulfillment. Look forward to seeing your posts

Yeah I've Heard of People Doing That kind of Thing ? Like Putting the Smaller Csnera Bags or Cases inside a Gym Bag / Duffle Bag or Grip type Bag as camouflage !!! Obviously if your Packing a Really Big Case ? That might not be An Option ? But otherwise One Could Get a. SECOND hand Grip Bsg from a Goodwill store or a Thrift Shop and If it has Stains on it or paint Splatters that's just extra camouflaging you don't need too do ? It Gives the Impression that its Old beat up and not Carrying anything Worth Stealing inside !!!! Too each their own Taste but I'd look for Something a little More on the Discreet Side as opposed to Something with A Famous Logo of Athletic Shoe And Sports Clothes Mfrs !!! You want to Not attract Attention or Interest !!! Indeed even Old Backpacks that would Fit your case or Camera bag either Surplus or Second Hand might be More Discreet !!! But preferably something That Doesn't Scream camera Backpack either? The Styrofoam Cooler Is Good as Well and I may borrow That one !!! Thanks for the Suggestions And Good Evening everyone @@!

I'm interested to hear members views on replacing a background / foreground to create a new image and whether the 'new' image should be allowable in a club competition?

I don't currently have a view either way, but I feel Pandora's Box has been opened. If I were to shoot a fox in my garden, then a Badger a few minutes later would you be able to tell if I shott the 'background' independently - then pasted a fox or a badger onto it. Editing is only going one way at the moment.

I would expect, in the case of a competition entry all components of the final image to be the work of one author.

I shoot raw 100% all the time and post process every image. The technology behind sky replacement is very interesting but I would probably use it rarely, if ever, myself. The first reason I would not use sky replacement is because I am not interested in creating composite images. While I may remove distracting objects from images, I have no interest in adding people or objects or skies that were not in the original scene. However, I have no problem with composite images if others wish to create them.

Replacement skies have their uses and I am not against the concept itself, but I am disturbed by how they're used. I have seen many a good photo ruined by a poorly implemented replacement sky. I have often seen good skies replaced with ridiculously dramatic ones.

Too often these overly dramatic skies draw attention away from the main subject of the original image. In fact overly dramatic replacement skies often become the new main subject of an image. What makes this additionally concerning is that those sky replacement images used are in general rarely captured by the person using them. The result is that the most exciting part of the image wasn't actually captured by the person claiming ownership

In the hands of somebody who is skilled and using good quality software, sky replacements can be applied seamlessly. Unfortunately most people using sky replacements don't seem to possess that skill or a strong understanding of the use of light, reflection, and shadows. As a result the skies chosen are often inappropriate to the subject and don't match the image properly. In the worst cases they stick out like a sore thumb.

Some sky replacement software like Luminar attempts to compensate for lighting, shadows, and reflection, and often the results can be quite pleasing, but I've also seen sky replacement images processed by Luminar which were absolutely horrid.

I believe the overuse of easily available and dramatic stock replacement skies does not enhance the art of photography. Worse, when used often as an easy fix for problematic images, it can prevent novice photographers from improving their skills.