[Alex645]

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.

[Fogel70]

?

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.

[BruceBanner]

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.

[Fogel70]

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".

[clackers]

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.

[Fogel70]

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.

[clackers]

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.

[Fogel70]

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.

[BruceBanner]

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?!

[Navid.soltani]

If you know my story of why I became interested in Pentax, you'll get your answer!
The first time I bought a pentax k5, camera was with a kit lens and was shooting industrial photography on top of a pool. The camera fell into the water while shooting. it was in the water for 5 minutes! After we barely pulled out the camera we saw it was still lit and even shot under water! After a few minutes it went off and I took out my camera battery and let it dry for 1 days! Surprisingly the next day worked like the first day! It happened that even though I have a Sony R3, I have never left Pentax and now I have Pentax in a country that does not even have Pentax representation and is not supported! So believe in Pentax AW and WR !

[volley]

Then removing the lens from the camera would void the warranty.

If IPX rating is put on cameras and lenses they must withstand the testing as separate products.
You can't put IPX rating on a product with the condition that it is used together with another product. Then you can say that all products have highest possible IPX rating, you just need to put them is a dust/water tight box.
IP Code - Wikipedia

No that is not correct (I have done IP test myself).
A shaft seal for a turbine or generator for example has "a huge opening" but is tested and certified with a correctly machined shaft (which in the final application is not scope of the supply of the seal manufacturer. Of course the seal has an IPX rating. And this rating is only applicable if assembled around the correct shaft.

[Fogel70]

No that is not correct (I have done IP test myself).
A shaft seal for a turbine or generator for example has "a huge opening" but is tested and certified with a correctly machined shaft (which in the final application is not scope of the supply of the seal manufacturer. Of course the seal has an IPX rating. And this rating is only applicable if assembled around the correct shaft.

Yes, but there is a difference on a product thar are designed for permant assembly.
This type of application is not meant to be dissassembled by consumers during normal use.

The same is FI for light switches for outdoor use. They may only be protected once they are mounted on a wall.
These type of product are tested in the type of permanent application they are meant to be used.

But that can not be applied on a product that are designed to be dissassembled during normal use.

[volley]

Yes, but there is a difference on a product thar are designed for permant assemblies
This type of application is not meant to be dissassembled by consumers during normal use.

The same is FI for light switches for outdoor use. They may only be protected once they are mounted on a wall.

You mean like a camera body that's only protected with an assembled lens

[Fogel70]

You mean like a camera body that's only protected with an assembled lens

Only if the lens is permanently mounted to the camera. FI like on Ricoh WG-70 which is IP68 classed.

[jeallen01]

Yes, but there is a difference on a product thar are designed for permant assembly.
This type of application is not meant to be dissassembled by consumers during normal use.

The same is FI for light switches for outdoor use. They may only be protected once they are mounted on a wall.
These type of product are tested in the type of permanent application they are meant to be used.

But that can not be applied on a product that are designed to be dissassembled during normal use.

I completely agree with both points and, in particular, the first one - to quote an "extreme example", a submarine is "IP68 (and a big bit!) " when completely built and sealed up, but, before final assembly, the individual component sections may themselves have very low, or even no, IP ratings at all!