[normhead]

I shoot often in the mists of Niagara Falls and other wet places. I just always assume when I hear reports of failure that someone got a bad camera. Although, when I sent my 5 year old DA*60-250 in for repairs, they had to replace three of the seals. I guess they don't last forever.

[Not a Number]

I shoot often in the mists of Niagara Falls and other wet places. I just always assume when I hear reports of failure that someone got a bad camera. Although, when I sent my 5 year old DA*60-250 in for repairs, they had to replace three of the seals. I guess they don't last forever.

As I recall the K10D service manual says to replace the major seals any time the unit is serviced - not to inspect and replace as needed.

[Digitalis]

I CAN CONFIRMED HERE ON THIS TOPIC - WEATHER SEALED ON K 3 is not good - or it's completely fake

The only thing this confirms is that you are a statistical outlier. What we have here is a sample size of one*. Any statistician worth his salt would know that is a very small number, dwarfed by the number of those who are completely satisfied with the weather resistance of Pentax cameras. If 1 camera out of 1000 fails does that invalidate the properties of the remaining 999? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

* Up to this point in time. Yes, i'm prepared to fight fair. I know that considering the audience, this might be considered to be an incendiary topic for a survey: but it might provide useful data over how many people are truly satisfied with the weather resistance of their Pentax cameras.

[rawr]

they had to replace three of the seals. I guess they don't last forever.

This morning I bought some braided stainless steel hoses for a kitchen tap replacement. The hoses came with a blank date tag on them: "Installation date", and an advisory that said: "We recommend flexible hoses are replaced every 5 years'.

I guess much the same applies for the rubber gaskets in camera lenses. They can't last forever.

[victormeldrew]

I'm happy to report that I shoot in rain with my K-5 regularly. The weather sealing works faultlessly in my case.

I think that, far from being fake, it just seems to be a key feature, heavily advertised, which is then usually not covered by the warranty if it fails. Whether or not the factory might occasionally install a faulty seal, or seat it incorrectly, or use materials that are not up to the job...it's tough, because if water subsequently gets in, it is blamed on the user and they are left out of pocket. Personally I think that if they are not going to stand behind their advertising claims they should stop making them, in which case they may as well not bother installing it.

The better option obviously, is for them to investigate water ingress properly to discover if a seal has failed and then honour the warranty if so, rather than routinely dismiss claims out of hand.

[BigMackCam]

I have several watches, and one of my 300m automatic diver's watches suffered water ingress while I was swimming in shallow water. Probably a faulty gasket between the case and screw-down back, or perhaps at the screw-down crown. Maybe there was a contaminant on one of those gaskets when the watch was first assembled, or it could be that insufficient grease was applied to the gaskets. Who knows? Either way, it happens. I was just unlucky.

The same watch, after servicing, has been worn whilst scuba diving without any problems. It's a popular brand of watch, and I know other divers who wear the same model during diving without any problems.

At no time did I feel any need to suggest the manufacturer's claim of water resistance was fake. I was a little disappointed it happened to my particular watch, but it's just one of those things.

That was a watch rated at 300m water resistance. Here, we're talking about cameras that are designed to be weather-resistant, but with no specific rating or guarantee to be weather- or water-proof. I think Ricoh should be clearer on realistic use cases for its WR cameras and lenses, and the risks. But even then there will be a few units that slip through quality control where WR is compromised for one reason or another. It doesn't mean their WR claim is fake...

[aslyfox]

I have several watches, and one of my 300m automatic diver's watches suffered water ingress while I was swimming in shallow water. Probably a faulty gasket between the case and screw-down back, or perhaps at the screw-down crown. Maybe there was a contaminant on one of those gaskets when the watch was first assembled, or it could be that insufficient grease was applied to the gaskets. Who knows? Either way, it happens. . .. . But even then there will be a few units that slip through quality control where WR is compromised for one reason or another. It doesn't mean their WR claim is fake...

mass production of products, instead of slower individual production of a product by a single " craftsman " [ or woman ] or a group of craftsmen on a single product, can lead to variation due to speed and lack of individual attention to each item produced.

variations can be small or major, affecting one occasionally or in the case of major errors, many

known but accepted or unknown

how many of us could afford to buy a wrist watch manufactured by a single craftsman

how many of us could afford to buy a automobile which was "hand crafted" in every detail

I could not and hand crafted manufactured items can have problems and variations too.

the "modern age" and its mass production has been a great boon to most of us

and has lead to problems for many of us as well - look up the term " luddite "

many will recognize the situation [that some would call "progress" ] that led to the luddite movement is applicable to today's world as well.

__________________________________

is there " puffery " in advertisement and sale of products ?

is there " lying " in the advertisement and sale of products ?

the answer is yes to both questions and the only truth is that it isn't new to the sale or barter of items from one to another

it has existed since time started.

______________________________________________________________



---------- Post added 08-19-17 at 05:54 ----------

This morning I bought some braided stainless steel hoses for a kitchen tap replacement. The hoses came with a blank date tag on them: "Installation date", and an advisory that said: "We recommend flexible hoses are replaced every 5 years'.

I guess much the same applies for the rubber gaskets in camera lenses. They can't last forever.

I have bought batteries " good for x number of years storage "

I can't find the manufactured date

I have no idea when the batteries were produced, sat in the producer's warehouse, sat in the wholesaler's storehouse, and sat in the back room of the retailer

how long will the batteries last ????

how the heck do I know

---

Last edited by aslyfox; 08-19-2017 at 03:56 AM.

[Racer X 69]

I've used my K5IIs in wet conditions dozens of times.


Still works perfectly.


Of course I always ensure the lens is mounted fully and is a WR lens. I also take care to not allow gear to become fully submerged, especially around salt water. Remember, the term is 'weather resistant", not weather proof.


A long time member and prolific contributor here, Heie, posted a video a few years back he did while stationed in Afghanistan.

He takes a K5 and a K3, both with lenses mounted, sets them on the ground and shovels sand and dirt on them, picks them up and gives them a shake, then takes them into the billet, and in the shower gives them a rinse. He finishes up with a short demonstration of them still functioning normally, firing off a few shots.

He continued to use that gear to make great images that he shares on this forum.

[normhead]

My dog tipped my canoe on a recent trip getting my FA 50 macro's case full of water. I spent the last two days drying it out and reassembling it. A chore I really have no talent for. It took me 45 minutes to reassemble a lens a real technician would have had together in 3 minutes. I drop things, I lose things, I fumble trying to pick up things with tweezers. I'm hopeless. I'm thinking a DFA 100 macro WR is in order. I can say without any hesitation, none of my WR lenses would have been harmed and saved me hours of futzing around. People can say what they want about WR lenses, for me it's worth paying for. Recent experience says, I should have bought more Pentax WR lenses and camera bodies, not less.

[BigMackCam]

My dog tipped my canoe on a recent trip getting my FA 50 macro's case full of water. I spent the last two days drying it out and reassembling it. A chore I really have no talent for. It took me 45 minutes to reassemble a lens a real technician would have had together in 3 minutes. I drop things, I lose things, I fumble trying to pick up things with tweezers. I'm hopeless. I'm thinking a DFA 100 macro WR is in order. I can say without any hesitation, none of my WR lenses would have been harmed and saved me hours of futzing around. People can say what they want about WR lenses, for me it's worth paying for. Recent experience says, I should have bought more Pentax WR lenses and camera bodies, not less.

There's another benefit to shooting with WR and AW lenses... In my experience, it pretty much guarantees pleasant, dry, dust-free weather at least 90% of the time The opposite can be said for shooting with non-WR lenses

[MrB1]

He takes a K5 and a K3, both with lenses mounted, sets them on the ground and shovels sand and dirt on them, picks them up and gives them a shake, then takes them into the billet, and in the shower gives them a rinse. He finishes up with a short demonstration of them still functioning normally, firing off a few shots.

The test described here is a relatively simple demonstration of resistance to dust and water for a short time, which is unlikely to breach the seals in Pentax WR gear. That is probably (and reasonably, in my view) the extent of "weather resistance" - if out shooting, it doesn't matter if the camera is exposed to dust or water, just clean and dry it then carry on.

The ingress of dust and water into the lens and camera body to cause damage, would be much more likely (perhaps almost certain) if an attached extending-barrel zoom lens (e.g. 16-85 WR or 18-135 WR) were repeatedly zoomed in and out, as is commonly done during normal use, with the camera exposed to those extreme conditions for longer than a minute or two.

Not everyone would understand or realise this and therefore, in my view, although WR is not fake and is a feature worth having and worth advertising, the failure of Pentax is in not clarifying the safe and proper usage of WR zooms in their documentation.

Philip

[normhead]

Not everyone would understand or realise this and therefore, in my view, although WR is not fake and is a feature worth having and worth advertising, the failure of Pentax is in not clarifying the safe and proper usage of WR zooms in their documentation.

Philip

And IMHO the difference between Water Resistance and Waterproof should be apparent. With Water Resistance you should know you are taking a chance getting your camera wet. Owning a number of waterproof shock proof cameras, I often make a choice between camera based on the likely hood of needing water proof.

[BigMackCam]

the difference between Water Resistance and Waterproof should be apparent. With Water Resistance you should know you are taking a chance getting your camera wet.

Bingo.

[richandfleur]

Sounds like a feature to be marketed as Should work but may not, and if it doesn't then that's normal too.

[Racer X 69]

So who here doesn't understand the difference between water and dust resistant, and water and dust proof?