Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-08-2019, 10:33 PM - 1 Like   #31
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,498
QuoteOriginally posted by BruceBanner Quote
I wonder if there can be a kinda 'O' ring that could be pushed to seal the join between the lens and camera body...

I guess what I'm saying is there's shooting in rain and then there's shooting in rain. I have a HD DA 20-40 en-route but I am really a little unsure of how far to push it's WR capabilities. Light showers fine, mist fog, fine, medium rain ok, downpour? No I'm guessing.
A variety pack of rubber bands would probably have one that would do the trick as an outer over-ring....with lenses sans aperture rings. Think lens leash type collar but the rubber band snugged up next to the camera around the rear of the lens. Tighter the better.

With my own gear I have never had the need or desire to risk it in a serious downpour. Where I have found WR/AW to be a difference-maker are the huge temperature/humidity changes. Entering a cold wet cave from a hot humid jungle, cold dry winter air into a warm interior, large powerful waterfalls.....these micro-climate changes usually result in lens fogging or the camera going dormant and with the combo of WR camera and lens, you can keep on shooting.

05-09-2019, 12:05 AM   #32
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,071
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
?

But this already happens with Pentax ratings.

Each camera or lens is rated WR or AW, in itself - by your logic they should never have done that.

There is nothing stopping them getting certification for the K-1, as a fictional example, as IPX-3 when used in conjunction with an IPX-3 lens, say, the DFA*50.

(Edit: And I do like Bruce's suggestion that for any combination, you just use the lower of the ratings. We already informally do this. WR body plus non WR lens equals non WR combination)
The difference is that IPX is a standard that they must comply to. With WR and AW they can set whatever conditions they may like as it is their own standard.

AW sealings are probably equivalent of IP45 or better, and WR of IP34 or better, but as they are not fully encapsulated they can not apply this specification on them.
The highest rating they can use is probably the same as Olympus - IPX1, but that is conditions that most cameras or lenses can withstand, sealed or not.
05-09-2019, 12:18 AM   #33
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
BruceBanner's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
Posts: 3,772
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
The difference is that IPX is a standard that they must comply to. With WR and AW they can set whatever conditions they may like as it is their own standard.

AW sealings are probably equivalent of IP45 or better, and WR of IP34 or better, but as they are not fully encapsulated they can not apply this specification on them.
The highest rating they can use is probably the same as Olympus - IPX1, but that is conditions that most cameras or lenses can withstand, sealed or not.
It probably does have something to do with them not being able to rate them because they are not technically 'sealed' at all times possible etc.
05-09-2019, 12:19 AM   #34
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,071
QuoteOriginally posted by BruceBanner Quote
I just don't understand how you can't get a WR body cap for the camera, put it through its paces, then do the same with a lens (with a WR rear cap), and then rate both products and then when connected use the weakest IPX rating (whatever that element might be) as a sensible guideline.

Like from a warranty issue surely people bending the truth anyway, "oh I only took it out in a light bit of rain for 5mins" when really they dropped it in the bath. I mean can't a company give a rating but then stipulate that due to the nature of ICL that warranty issues surrounding water damage cannot be actioned on and that the IPX rating is only a guideline for sensible safe use? I just don't get the connection between offering a rating to let the user know exactly where they stand on a product vs warranty issues.
As far as I know the IPX standard apply to all normal use intended for the product. So on ILC or lens the IPX rating should be valid for conditions when switching lenses.
It is worst case scenario of normal use that set the standard for the highest IPX rating you can set.

For ILCs and lenses the IPX rating will therefore be set so low that any camera can withstand the conditions, sealed or not.
So using IPX standard for ILC and lenses is equivalent of specifying 0-60 MPh on a fast sports car as "less than one minute".

05-09-2019, 10:42 PM - 1 Like   #35
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 13,207
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
The difference is that IPX is a standard that they must comply to. With WR and AW they can set whatever conditions they may like as it is their own standard.

AW sealings are probably equivalent of IP45 or better, and WR of IP34 or better, but as they are not fully encapsulated they can not apply this specification on them.
The highest rating they can use is probably the same as Olympus - IPX1, but that is conditions that most cameras or lenses can withstand, sealed or not.
IPX is also a voluntary standard. You might certify in order to win a commercial or government contract, that might ask for an IP34 product. You go for it when you think it's a point of difference with your opposition, and it could be argued Pentax might like to play this up versus the other brands, especially in the entry level products.

Pentaxians frequently cite WR and ruggedness of build as to why they bought their camera in the first place.

In a later post, you acknowledge the rating applies to normal usage, not when changing lenses. So that'd be true also for changing batteries and SD cards.
05-10-2019, 12:24 AM   #36
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,071
To get IPX certification the product has to got through a standardized testing to verify that the product can live up to the rating. The IPX rating was initially designed for personal safety protection on machinery and high voltage products, so testing is a very important part of the certification. So Ricoh can't just label the product with IPX rating as they like.
05-10-2019, 01:42 AM - 1 Like   #37
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 13,207
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
To get IPX certification the product has to got through a standardized testing to verify that the product can live up to the rating. The IPX rating was initially designed for personal safety protection on machinery and high voltage products, so testing is a very important part of the certification. So Ricoh can't just label the product with IPX rating as they like.
That's fine, it's how my Samsung phone got rated, it's how every product with an IPX rating is done.
05-10-2019, 03:56 AM   #38
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,071
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
That's fine, it's how my Samsung phone got rated, it's how every product with an IPX rating is done.
So you think it would be an advantage for Ricoh to certify their lenses and cameras to get FI IPX1, while the actual sealing they got would be equivalent of IP34-45?
What advantage would such certification give over the current WR or AW?

My smartphone also go IPX certification (IP68), but as smartphone are fully encapsulated, the certification they get actually give you info on what type of sealing it got.

05-10-2019, 04:06 AM   #39
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
BruceBanner's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
Posts: 3,772
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
So you think it would be an advantage for Ricoh to certify their lenses and cameras to get FI IPX1, while the actual sealing they got would be equivalent of IP34-45?
What advantage would such certification give over the current WR or AW?

My smartphone also go IPX certification (IP68), but as smartphone are fully encapsulated, the certification they get actually give you info on what type of sealing it got.
I wonder if we had enough brave souls with rich bank accounts to do some testing whilst recording. K-1 + DFA50 under a shower at a drizzle for 2 mins, then 5, then 10, then increase pressure/volume etc etc. Hehehe... whose game?!
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens, vs, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LowePro ProTactic 350 AW vs 450 AW? CoolMan8 Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 16 04-03-2019 01:10 AM
K-5 vs MZ-S vs LX vs PZ-1p vs ist*D vs K10D vs K20D vs K-7 vs....... Steelski Pentax K-5 2 06-28-2017 04:59 PM
Enthusiast vs Prosumer vs Semi Pro vs Pro vs APSC vs Full Frame mickyd Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 11-12-2013 07:14 PM
18-55 WR vs Sigma 18-50. WR vs IQ ? adr1an Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 07-30-2011 12:43 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:17 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top