[monochrome]

Sandy I'm responding to other posters, this is no monologue.

Sigh, Some people will never let Pentax just do something right. Then they ruin the party for everyone else.

Other posters - numerous other posters - are responding with incredulity to your incessant and incorrect claims on thread after thread after thread.

To which you respond . . . .

A two-year-old can read the text and understand whether the lens offered in a given kit at a given retailer is weather resistant. I have yet to see any claim that an entire kit is weather resistant - just the mentions of the camera body and (or not) the lens.

'Nuff said. I thought I could de-Ignore you. Guess not.

[illdefined]

I'm sure it's illegal to claim something is weatherproof when it's not. The problem is not in the selling but in the claiming. Why would the French you seem to admire so much require Pentax to include a WR lens (which really isn't "sealed" in any case - there's another fraud to jump on) with every camera kit that has a lens?

I agree that the Newegg text is misleading - no question. That sort of thing is just wrong. And probably an error from going to fast - an unfortunately common Internet trend. But I don't get the nanny state attitude that says Pentax must box K30s with WR or sealed lenses if the marketing collateral is worded in such a way that it meets the kit being marketed - sealed camera with standard lens, for example.

I agree with you that the advertising and promotional material simply must match the goods being sold. But that's not unique to France, is it?

No, it's just apparently in France it is illegal to market something in way that requires another purchase to be that way.

The first leaked K30 ad was French and marketed the K30 as "Tropicalized" so by law can only be shown (and presumably sold) with an WR lens. That makes sense to me.

Already we've seen ads with the K30 wet all over, even SUBMERSED in water (?), granted they all had WR lenses attached, but to me that's telling both the consumer and uninformed sales associate something that is patently false with the most common non-WR kit. This doesn't make sense to me.

[D0n]

No, it's just apparently in France it is illegal to market something in way that requires another purchase to be that way.

The first leaked K30 ad was French and marketed the K30 as "Tropicalized" so by law can only be shown (and presumably sold) with an WR lens. That makes sense to me.

Already we've seen ads with the K30 wet all over, even SUBMERSED in water (?), granted they all had WR lenses attached, but to me that's telling both the consumer and uninformed sales associate something that is patently false with the most common non-WR kit. This doesn't make sense to me.

does this Caveat emptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia make sense to you?
there's got to be a point where people take some responsibility to read the label.... false advertising would be showing the k30 with the non wr 15-55 covered in water! misleading would be saying the kit includes a WR lens and sending the non wr lens... everything you're arguing is centred around the assumption that nobody but you can read...

[monochrome]

does this Caveat emptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia make sense to you?
there's got to be a point where people take some responsibility to read the label.... false advertising would be showing the k30 with the non wr 15-55 covered in water! misleading would be saying the kit includes a WR lens and sending the non wr lens... everything you're arguing is centred around the assumption that nobody but you can read...

[EDIT:] Per Adam this is incorrect - B&H will not offer the WR kit lens bundled

The US kit has the WR 18~55 at B&H. This is an empty argument.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 05-22-2012 at 02:37 PM.

[illdefined]

Sigh, Some people will never let Pentax just do something right. Then they ruin the party for everyone else.

Other posters - numerous other posters - are responding with incredulity to your incessant and incorrect claims on thread after thread after thread.

To which you respond . . . .

A two-year-old can read the text and understand whether the lens offered in a given kit at a given retailer is weather resistant. I have yet to see any claim that an entire kit is weather resistant - just the mentions of the camera body and (or not) the lens.

'Nuff said. I thought I could de-Ignore you. Guess not.

I'm guilty of ruining 'parties' now ? I didn't start this thread, so it's obviously a concern to more people than just me. I didn't even find that New Egg link, somebody else did that too.

others have have agreed with me here and elsewhere, and I think those people were older than two. at least they certainly weren't acting like you just did.

[D0n]

The US kit has the WR 18~55 at B&H. This is an empty argument.

read a little further back...

New Gear: Pentax K-30 Weather-Resistant DSLR | Popular Photography

I already mentioned this, but it didn't stop some from continuing on arguing ....

[illdefined]

does this Caveat emptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia make sense to you?
there's got to be a point where people take some responsibility to read the label.... false advertising would be showing the k30 with the non wr 15-55 covered in water! misleading would be saying the kit includes a WR lens and sending the non wr lens... everything you're arguing is centred around the assumption that nobody but you can read...

Fine. I guess people should be submersing their K30 with 18-135mm WR lens like they do in that ad then as well.

we'll see if the WR/non-WR thing becomes an issue or negative talking point in the reviews down the line. it already needed clearing up on their Facebook page today when it completely didn't have to be.

[D0n]

Fine. I guess people should be submersing their K30 with 18-135mm WR lens like they do in that ad then as well.

we'll see if the WR/non-WR thing becomes an issue or negative talking point in the reviews down the line. it already needed clearing up on their Facebook page today when it completely didn't have to be.

I agree, when something is just announced, and rumours, conjecture, fanboys and haterz are all lighting up blogoshpere and social networking sites, there is bound to be confusion. But I think the magazines and more importantly the retailers ought to know enough about trying to not get sued to figure it out and explain it to all but the most dense consumers. And the simple remedy for the odd misunderstanding is exchange or refund at the store, not lawsuits.

and for the record... my 7 yr old boy tried to take a photo of his cat on a boogie board in the swimming pool... with my k10, without asking... took him about three weeks to round up the courage to tell me..... that he had dropped it in three feet of water with the 18-55 wr and no ill effects.

surprisingly the boy only had a few scratches, no stitches required... so everybody was happy but the cat.

[MSL]

I expect the average consumer/sales rep is the reason warning labels like this exist:

THANK YOU - that is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time. Reminds me of the cartoon of two teenagers changing a bulging diaper and one says to the other "8 - 12 pounds is the babies weight, not how much it can hold"

I bought the WR lens with my K5 and it had little to do with the WR aspect - the lens just felt so much better in my hands, from the shapes of the rings to the quick release manual focus option. The DAL version of the lens just felt all wrong... Salesman had little to do but let me play with both for a while.

[illdefined]

read a little further back...


I already mentioned this, but it didn't stop some from continuing on arguing ....

yes, exactly thank you. this photo to me is very misleading. no reading required: "ooh, I want this waterproof one please, give me the cheapest one"

[D0n]

yes, exactly thank you. this photo to me is very misleading. no reading required: "ooh, I want this waterproof one please, give me the cheapest one"

[illdefined]

never overestimate the general public.

[D0n]

as soon as you make something "Idiot Proof", they'll just make a better idiot.

[illdefined]

The US kit has the WR 18~55 at B&H. This is an empty argument.

And the US Amazon kit has the 18-55mm NON-WR kit for the exact same price.

[monochrome]

eddie1960's sig. line

'"Nothing is idiot proof to a determined idiot!"
Rick Parkhurst (forum member)'

From a reply on a similar thread argument about whether Pentax has any business selling an XS lens for mirrorless cameras with a rear element that would strike the mirror of a dSLR.