Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-22-2014, 03:11 PM   #46
Veteran Member
OregonJim's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon
Posts: 1,329
QuoteOriginally posted by promacjoe Quote
My new 18-135 WR lens actually pumps air and moisture into the camera body when zooming.
I have a couple of lenses like that. A Sigma 70-200 that will actually blow out a candle when you zoom it, and a Tamron 35-105 that sucks air in like a vacuum cleaner.

06-22-2014, 04:07 PM   #47
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Frozen white North
Photos: Albums
Posts: 845
If Pentax advertises the camera as being WR, then it needs to perform as such.

If Pentax designs the camera to be WR including 70+ seals (according to their literature) then it needs to perform as such.

To have so many people suffer problems with weather sealing is unacceptable, IMO.

Nobody in their right mind designs a camera with 70+ seals (77 on the K-5, 92 on the K-3) then goes and says "Careful now, if you get it wet it might not work..."
06-22-2014, 05:00 PM   #48
Veteran Member
OregonJim's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon
Posts: 1,329
QuoteOriginally posted by sebberry Quote
Nobody in their right mind designs a camera with 70+ seals (77 on the K-5, 92 on the K-3) then goes and says "Careful now, if you get it wet it might not work..."
Regardless of what you think it means, research shows otherwise:

"The Japanese Industrial Standard (JIS) Codes are a set of tests used to verify the protection of electrical equipment against the ingress of water and/or dust. The different levels of protection are expressed as different grades (or classes)."

"Note: PENTAX DSLRs and lenses which are designated as dust, water or weather-resistant are not graded using JIS classifications."

OVERVIEW OF WEATHER AND WATER RESISTANT PENTAX RICOH IMAGING CAMERAS AND LENSES | Ricoh Imaging Support
06-22-2014, 05:07 PM   #49
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Frozen white North
Photos: Albums
Posts: 845
So why bother with weather sealing at all? You don't just add seals, you have to design the parts to accept the seals. There's a fair bit of design work required to add all the seals.

06-22-2014, 05:22 PM   #50
Veteran Member
OregonJim's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Willamette Valley, Oregon
Posts: 1,329
QuoteOriginally posted by sebberry Quote
So why bother with weather sealing at all? You don't just add seals, you have to design the parts to accept the seals. There's a fair bit of design work required to add all the seals.
No argument there, but the seals are not tested or graded according to any industry standard, so we can't arbitrarily pick some level of weatherproof-ness and say Ricoh should meet it. Ricoh themselves admit that Pentax DSLRs & lenses aren't measured by JIS standards. They can't be - there's a big, gaping hole in the body where the lens mounts!
06-22-2014, 05:59 PM - 1 Like   #51
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,267
QuoteOriginally posted by sebberry Quote
So why bother with weather sealing at all? You don't just add seals, you have to design the parts to accept the seals. There's a fair bit of design work required to add all the seals.
Because for the most part it works just fine. To meet some standard would double the price, mostly from testing and certification, and covering any flaws. And for the vast majority of users it would make no material difference. As it is someone who takes reasonable care of the equipment can shoot in the rain from time to time without a worry.

Pentax also makes metal bodies that are strong. Should they warrant against drops and impacts as well? If not, why not make it out of plastic?

Perfect is the enemy of the good in this instance.

---------- Post added 06-22-14 at 06:11 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by sebberry Quote
Nobody in their right mind designs a camera with 70+ seals (77 on the K-5, 92 on the K-3) then goes and says "Careful now, if you get it wet it might not work..."
That isn't what they say. They say they won't warrant for water damage.

Did you know that if the little plastic slide in piece on the hotshoe needs to be there for the body to be water resistant? What about the USB door. On the K-3 it takes a bit of working to get it to seat and seal. It is open on mine after every time I shoot. If I do it properly it seals tight, if I don't, should I blame Ricoh? If you take a WR lens off, the whole front is open to the elements.

It is not waterproof. It is weather resistant.

At your own risk.

I'm happy with that and have had good results.
06-22-2014, 08:14 PM   #52
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by sebberry Quote
If Pentax advertises the camera as being WR, then it needs to perform as such.

If Pentax designs the camera to be WR including 70+ seals (according to their literature) then it needs to perform as such.

To have so many people suffer problems with weather sealing is unacceptable, IMO.

Nobody in their right mind designs a camera with 70+ seals (77 on the K-5, 92 on the K-3) then goes and says "Careful now, if you get it wet it might not work..."
I agree with you; Pentax has a certain degree of responsibility to make them work well in foul weather because they advertise them this way. You should be able to shoot for 30 minutes in the rain without suffering any ill-effects, assuming you properly care for the camera before and afterward.
06-22-2014, 08:55 PM   #53
Pentaxian
dosdan's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,699
QuoteOriginally posted by lotech Quote
All Ks I used are weather sealed, but they all got fog at the top LCD when shooting in the rain this is not acceptable, there is no moving parts at that area why so hard to seal it well !? I am losing faith on Pentax how about you ?
What lens are you using? I've got a DA* 60-250/F4 that I always use on rainy day sports events. Even though it's a WR lens, it will still fog up after a few hours shooting sports in the rain. The reason is that I'm frequently producing a large change in lens volume, involved in the 4:1 change in FL when zooming in and out a lot. Since I don't hear a wheeze when I change the lens, this pressure differential seems to be rapidly equalised. (Water molecules are bigger than the nitrogen & oxygen molecules in the air - I suppose the camera body's pressure equalisation vent has a filter pad which is designed to block the water molecules, while letting the smaller molecules move freely in and out, but it's probably not 100% effective.)

I'd like to see how a prime WR lens (e.g. DA 100/F2.8 Macro WR) performs in heavy rain since it doesn't have this large internal volume change. (I've got a FA 100/F2.8 Macro, but it isn't WR.)

Or the new Sigma 70-200/F2.8 Sports lens which is an IF design (internal focusing - no change in body length when zooming) and is supposed to be WR. (I've got an old 70-200/F2.8 II version of this lens, but I don't use it in heavy rain.)

Dan.


Last edited by dosdan; 06-22-2014 at 09:30 PM.
06-22-2014, 09:13 PM   #54
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by dosdan Quote
What lens are you using. I've got a DA* 60-250/F4 that I always use on rainy day sports events. Even though it's a WR lens, it will still fog up after a few hours shooting sports in the rain. The reason is that I'm frequently producing a large change in lens volume, involved in the 4:1 change in FL when zooming in and out a lot. Since I don't hear a wheeze when I change the lens, this pressure difference seems to be rapidly equalised. (Water molecules are bigger than the nitrogen & oxygen molecules in the air - I suppose the camera body's pressure equalisation vent is designed to block the water molecules, while letting the smaller molecules move freely in and out, but it's probably not 100% effective.)
That's a great idea; the DA* lenses are supposed to have the best weather sealing anyway, and the IF makes it even more practical. This is one time I'd really appreciate having that lens (or the DA*300), but I use the non-WR F*300, FA135, and FA*85 instead (and fortunately the weather's good most of the time).
06-22-2014, 09:18 PM   #55
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Nelson B.C.
Posts: 3,267
The DA*300 has IF and doesn't fog up. I was shooting the other day, my glasses were wet and foggy, the viewfinder was fogged over as was the screen on the back. I pointed, hit AF and was impressed with what I got.
06-22-2014, 09:37 PM - 1 Like   #56
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,343
QuoteOriginally posted by sebberry Quote
If Pentax advertises the camera as being WR, then it needs to perform as such.
It's WR as in Weather Resistant. WR performance is resisting the negative effects of weather (basically atmospheric moisture and dust, although you could add UV and extreme temperature exposure to that short list) better than a similar product that isn't advertised as WR.
QuoteOriginally posted by sebberry Quote
Nobody in their right mind designs a camera with 70+ seals... then goes and says "Careful now, if you get it wet it might not work..."
What they have done is make it clear that they are not guaranteeing that the camera won't get wet inside, even after installing 70+ seals. No manufacturer can guarantee that their product will successfully resist the negative effects of all and any user operations. Everything is breakable, but some products are harder to break than others. If breaking it is getting excessive moisture or dust inside the camera so it doesn't function properly, then a WR camera system should be harder to break than a non WR camera system. If those 70+ seals didn't make it harder to break a Pentax WR camera system, Pentax wouldn't put them in. Common sense, reason and logic can't be completely disregarded.
QuoteOriginally posted by sebberry Quote
To have so many people suffer problems with weather sealing is unacceptable
Based on inconsistent anecdotes from anonymous posters on an Internet discussion board, with no idea as to the actual number of people who have perceived this to be a problem, their significance relative to the total number of users, the actual severity of their perceived problem, or even if their perceived problem is the result of defective or poorly installed seals and nothing else?

This kind of self-perpetuating hysteria only harms the users who buy into it. It prevents them from properly defining real problems in order to have a reasonable chance of getting real problems resolved, and it destroys any personal benefits they might have obtained from their purchase, because it creates inappropriate expectations that are never going to be met. If you go looking for unhappy customers to reinforce your own unhappiness with a product, you will find some, guaranteed, no matter how awesome its weather seals are.
06-22-2014, 09:37 PM   #57
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,427
QuoteOriginally posted by sebberry Quote
So why bother with weather sealing at all?
Do you have experience with a non-sealed body in foul weather? It does not require much moisture to kill. The seals on the various camera bodies that have them (all makes) add a degree of field durability that is much appreciated by myself and others. That being said, the seals are not intended as or designed as a substitute for a waterproof camera enclosure and it is unfortunate that some users don't understand that. Pentax marketing has not helped in that regard and neither have the various accounts of cameras under the kitchen faucet for regular cleaning.


Steve

---------- Post added 06-22-14 at 09:40 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
Based on inconsistent anecdotes from anonymous posters on an Internet discussion board, with no idea as to the actual number of people who have perceived this to be a problem, their significance relative to the total number of users, the actual severity of their perceived problem, or even if their perceived problem is the result of defective or poorly installed seals and nothing else?

This kind of self-perpetuating hysteria only harms the users who buy into it. It prevents them from properly defining real problems in order to have a reasonable chance of getting real problems resolved, and it destroys any personal benefits they might have obtained from their purchase, because it creates inappropriate expectations that are never going to be met. If you go looking for unhappy customers to reinforce your own unhappiness with a product, you will find some, guaranteed, no matter how awesome their weather seals are.
Dang! You said this well! Thank you for the contribution.


Steve
06-22-2014, 10:45 PM   #58
Senior Member




Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 211
Original Poster
Thanks for the comments, and btw my primary lens is the DA* 16-50, it has no sign of condense on the glass but on the window. I know I should always play safe, but I feel uncomfortable if someone told me not to use an umbrella in the rain because it is unreliable ! or 'weather seal' was too strong a word Pentax to use, 'water resist' or 'splash and drizzle proof' would be more suitable, even better if an IP rating is provided.

On the other hand I don't know if any brand uses nano coating type of waterproofing on camera, my phone treated with 'Liquipel' and I never had problem using it in the rain, of course touch screen will not function in water. Image sensor may not like the coating, but can be done on the circuit board and connectors.
06-22-2014, 11:02 PM   #59
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Southern California
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,181
QuoteOriginally posted by RGlasel Quote
Based on inconsistent anecdotes from anonymous posters on an Internet discussion board, with no idea as to the actual number of people who have perceived this to be a problem, their significance relative to the total number of users, the actual severity of their perceived problem, or even if their perceived problem is the result of defective or poorly installed seals and nothing else?

This kind of self-perpetuating hysteria only harms the users who buy into it. It prevents them from properly defining real problems in order to have a reasonable chance of getting real problems resolved, and it destroys any personal benefits they might have obtained from their purchase, because it creates inappropriate expectations that are never going to be met. If you go looking for unhappy customers to reinforce your own unhappiness with a product, you will find some, guaranteed, no matter how awesome its weather seals are.
-- Beeeeeeep -- -- Beeeeeeep -- -- Beeeeeeep -- The internet is crashing! The internet is crashing!
06-23-2014, 05:00 AM   #60
Junior Member




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: England
Photos: Albums
Posts: 41
I once had a really nice water resistance watch which after about 5 years finally needed the batter replacing - upon taking it to an authorised dealer for battery replacement, I was advised that the water resistance seal could only be guaranteed if the battery replacement was carried out at the factory.

As I let the words swirl around, I asked 'why is that then, you are an authorised dealer service/repair centre), and although they were, they did not have the facilities or equipment to check/test and certify the sealing of the O ring within the watch. So I sent it off, it came back with a really nice check list showing condition, scratch mark location, etc. etc. It had been serviced, battery replaced, cleaned and returned to me with the seals checked/tested and with another year warranty on the seal & battery.

As for the Pentax K-3, I purchased this on the understanding that unlike my K-x, it wouldn't matter if it got a little wet as shown on one of the official promotional videos I watched :
which clearly shows it being subjected to getting wet. If it cannot handle this, then it purely is a case of false advertising and misrepresentation.
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!
bit, camera, design, dslr, dust, exposure, hope, k-3, k3, lcd, lenses, pentax k-3, plastic, rain, sand, seals, service, snow, steve, time, users, video, warrant, water, weather
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K5 weather sealing? Dario79 Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 14 05-08-2014 03:04 AM
So Fuji is more advanced in weather-sealing? Reportage Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 3 02-26-2014 05:58 AM
Pentax weather sealing: is it the real deal? zoolander Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 5 12-14-2013 11:45 AM
weather sealing proven Wired Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 07-25-2012 07:27 PM
Pentax DA* weather sealing. How good is it? yeedub Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 8 02-18-2008 03:53 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:48 AM. | 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