[BigMackCam]

I just got a K-3II with a 16-85 and noticed a light breeze in my face while zooming. It came from the ruber covered HDMI/Power slots. I never noticed that with my K-5 and lenses like the 18-135.

For example, my 18-135 must virtually halve its internal volume when zoomed out wide, i.e. from 135 to 18mm. Indeed, if this is done quickly on my K-5, it often blows the rubber stopper out of the mic port.

Yes, the air has to go somewhere. It's not at all unusual on the K-5, K-3 and K-3II (and, I suspect, other models) to feel air coming out somewhere when operating the zoom of a WR or AW lens. And, the better sealed the lens is, the more likely it is to cause this effect

To me it looks like the K-3II is more vulnerable and if you zoom it simple sucks water maybe directly on the mainboard?

With respect, can I ask the basis and sample group of your assessment? I've seen remarkably few reports of water damage with the K-3 and K-3II, and certainly nothing that suggests it is any worse than earlier models. I'm careful with my own cameras (as mentioned in my earlier response), but I do shoot in bad weather and I've yet to have any problem

[kh1234567890]

I've never understood how WR can work when using lenses that change length when zoomed

The WR lens 'seals' are basically strips of foam rubber that if you are lucky wipe off any water drops as the lens barel retracts. The whole WR thing is a marketing con.

[normhead]

The WR lens 'seals' are basically strips of foam rubber that if you are lucky wipe off any water drops as the lens barel retracts. The whole WR thing is a marketing con.

Ya right... that's why we've seen WR cameras and lenses immersed in moving streams or washed in the sink, that WR is such a crock. Someone should immerse their non WR DSLR in the kitchen sink, just to show us what a crock it all is. OK, ya'll can stop laughing now.

But I think the biggest advantage of WR is it enforces a whole new level of manufacturing tolerances. Those seals have to make contact with the barrel as it rotates. WR lenses just feel better, especially the operation of the zoom ring.

[disconnekt]

Weather Resistance (on any camera that has it) does work, but like everything else it does have its limits on how much "protecttion" it can give you in certain conditions.

[BigMackCam]

The WR lens 'seals' are basically strips of foam rubber that if you are lucky wipe off any water drops as the lens barel retracts. The whole WR thing is a marketing con.

So, the strips of foam rubber increase the chances of removing water before it gets into the lens... Surely that's exactly what weather resistance is? It's not weather proofing, for sure, but rather an additional measure to make water ingress less likely. Water resistance in all cameras and lenses (that I know of) is achieved using foam strips, rubber gaskets ("seals" is probably the wrong term) and/or "tongue and groove" moulded barriers in casing components - each of which help to reduce (but not completely prevent) water ingress. Honestly, I see no con here.

Anyway, it seems to work pretty well on my lenses. And AW works very well, as evidenced by my K-3 and DA* 60-250 which has been *drenched* with sea water, used at different zoom settings whilst in that very state, and only wiped down at the end of a 90 minute shoot - with no ill effects; not even fogging of the lens glass or camera viewfinder.

[geomez]

Sorry to hear. Most of my Pentax WR/AW gear has been tested in fairly heavy rain and has retained their usability.

[frogfoot]

With respect, can I ask the basis and sample group of your assessment? I've seen remarkably few reports of water damage with the K-3 and K-3II, and certainly nothing that suggests it is any worse than earlier models. I'm careful with my own cameras (as mentioned in my earlier response), but I do shoot in bad weather and I've yet to have any problem

Well, may be it really is. I shoot many times under a rain with my former cameras: K-7, K-5 and K-5II with 18-55 WR, 18-135 and 60-250.. and everything was ok.. But the first rain with K-3II... and it's broken...

[BigMackCam]

Well, may be it really is. I shoot many times under a rain with my former cameras: K-7, K-5 and K-5II with 18-55 WR, 18-135 and 60-250.. and everything was ok.. But the first rain with K-3II... and it's broken...

I sympathise, and I understand that you're disappointed and frustrated. But, I don't think your isolated experience - nor the tiny number of other reports we've heard of - is a solid basis for concluding (or even suspecting) that the K-3II is generally less weather-resistant than previous models. You might wish to believe it, given your disappointment, and you'd be forgiven for doing so - but it doesn't really stack up without a lot more evidence from many users.

Similar to you, I've owned a K-7, K-5, K-3 and K-3II amongst numerous other cameras. I still own the latter three, all of which have been used in wet weather and/or sea spray etc. (with a little bit of care, admittedly). All three have been fine so far and are used regularly.

Maybe you got a bad example... It happens. And it's highly probable that all K-3II's are not made absolutely equal... as with any product, there are manufacturing tolerances to consider. My K-3II may be slightly more weather resistant than yours, and someone else's K-3II may be more weather-resistant than mine, depending on the machining and finish of the case components, manufacture and placing of rubber gaskets etc. All I can say is, I've not yet had a problem with water ingress on any of my weather-resistant Pentax cameras, including the K-3 and K-3II (which are my main day-to-day bodies). They've all been equally good in this respect.

The overwhelming evidence here on PentaxForums (which is, bar none, the largest Pentax user group by far) suggests there are very few people, regardless of which Pentax weather-resistant model they shoot, that have had water ingress problems. It can happen, of course, but the number of reports we've seen really doesn't suggest the newer models are any worse than the older ones. Nor do those few reports - yours included - suggest there's a general problem.

But, again, I do sympathise

[jddwoods]

can anyone tell me the difference between the " W R " and " A W " designations on Pentax lenses:

examples:

HD Pentax-D FA 150-450mm F4.5-5.6 ED DC AW

HD Pentax-D FA* 70-200mm F2.8 ED DC AW

both have the " umbrella " symbol indicating WR

and

HD Pentax-DA 16-85mm F3.5-5.6 ED DC WR

which has the " umbrella " symbol indicating WR

in the profession I am educated and trained in different symbols/names/initials mean different things

what about here???

AW is a higher level of weather resistance and is typically only on the * lenses. I have one, the DA* 200 prime. It does not have an inner barrel, no zoom and nothing moves in and out while focusing. I would trust it is much more weather resistant than all of my other WR lenses; DA 16-85, 55-300 PLM and DFA 100 Macro which have inner barrels that do move in and out while focusing or zooming. Also, AW also stipulates dust resistance as well.

[BigMackCam]

AW is a higher level of weather resistance and is typically only on the * lenses. I have one, the DA* 200 prime. It does not have an inner barrel, no zoom and nothing moves in and out while focusing. I would trust it is much more weather resistant than all of my other WR lenses; DA 16-85, 55-300 PLM and DFA 100 Macro which have inner barrels that do move in and out while focusing or zooming. Also, AW also stipulates dust resistance as well.

My DA*60-250 has an extending inner barrel that moves during zooming, but it's also AW rated. Even so, I try not to zoom in and out with that barrel section wet. I've done it, but I prefer to wipe the barrel dry first. As discussed earlier in the thread, the AW measures aren't (can't be) perfect seals, but barriers that help reduce ingress. I'd expect your DA*200 prime to be more weather-resistant than my 60-250...

[Stagnant]

Earlier this month, I was on a vacation and I ended up photographing under heavy rain for many hours.
I used K-3 II and Sigma 18-35 which is not a weather sealed lens. On the other hand it is internal focus and internal zoom. For the most part I kept my camera under the rain jacket. When it was outside I kept it lens down with lcd facing the sky. After some hours, the shutter sound changed as if it was making extra actuation, but the combo kept working properly.
So in my experience, the camera even with a non-sealed lens can function properly in extremely unfavourable conditions if certain precautions are observed.

[amoringello]

AW is a higher level of weather resistance and is typically only on the * lenses. I have one, the DA* 200 prime. It does not have an inner barrel, no zoom and nothing moves in and out while focusing.

I wish all * lenses were internally zoom/focusing. Any barrel that capable of moving in and out is going to suck water in. (i.e. the DA*16-50).
It works great for a while but if you're out in the rain, actively focusing and zooming for hours it will be damaged. It will also likely suck enough water in to damage your camera.

The DA*50-135, on the other hand, is all internal. I was out in the pouring rain, shooting an event for eight hours, and no fogging nor other water issues. I was very happy and pleased with its operation.

Any of the WR lenses will hold up better in the rain if simply hanging at your side and not actively used. That is *probably* better than a totally non-WR kit.
But don't try to use them too much without wiping them down or using extra protection. (A simple grocery bag rubber banded to the end of your lens is a cheap and perfect way to save $100's or $1000 of replacement/repair. :-)

[frogfoot]

Nor do those few reports - yours included - suggest there's a general problem.
But, again, I do sympathise

Thank you. Yes, I realise that. That's why I wrote "May be".

[mercifulreleases]

I posted this on DP Review, but wanted to confirm having had almost exactly the same thing with another Pentax K3 II and DA16-85 --- after a bit of shooting in light rain/fog, my exposure meter also died. In my case, there's a bit of complication resulting from my having just had the viewfinder replaced. But even so, I can now account for almost 5 similar claims, and with that experience I'll certainly avoid using "WR" lenses near water.

Personally, I think that Pentax is making a mistake by using weak terms like "WR" on a camera line marketed for durability. As a casual user, I certainly didn't know the difference between WR vs AW, and killing a K3 II is an expensive way to learn the Pentax vocabulary. On the positive side, I didn't learn this with a K1/FA28-105.

NB: In a modern marketing world, Pentax would actually benefit from very visibly replacing the handful of cameras in question. A few very loyal customers telling stories about good experiences with customer support go a long way.

[Lev]

I was shooting under the moderate rain with K-3II and DA16-85. After a couple of hours exposure meter of the camera stopped working. Actually it was not very active shooting - I've taken just a dozen of pictures. I took the camera to authorised service center and reply I got from them embarassed me:

"The cause of the malfunction was the liquid entering the internal components of the camera.
K-3II does not have a design regulated by JIS and / or IP standards, therefore it is not sealed, so it must be protected from rain and splashes.
Based on the above facts, it can be concluded that the malfunctions identified during the diagnosis are not classified as production flaw. Camera repair is not possible under warranty."

So what's the point in weather resistance like this?

Sad to hear that. I was shooting with my K3II with 16-85 WR in a heavy rain for at least 15 minutes without any issues.