[rawr]

The hot shoe cover is just a cover and does not create a seal, though I totally get what you are saying.

I only mention it because I do recall reading [long, long ago, in some Pentax FAQ far, far away] that Pentax does consider it part of the camera WR package.

It does kind of make sense. On some Pentaxes if you pump a WR zoom when mounted on the body you can feel air puffing out from near the hotshoe [the air has to go somewhere ...]. When the hotshoe cover is in place, it blocks that vent hole a bit. So the cover may do something useful sometimes.

I notice some of the Fuji WR zooms have a 'ventilator' on the lens base that vents the air out from the lens itself as the lens retracts, and draws new air into the lens too, via a filter. Pentax WR lenses don't have that, so the air has to be vented via the body.

[stevebrot]

I only mention it because I do recall reading [long, long ago, in some Pentax FAQ far, far away] that Pentax does consider it part of the camera WR package.

I recall that as well, though with my magnifier loupe, I can clearly look up into the hot shoe space at the rear when the cover is in place. (There is an open slot, ~0.5mm wide, at the rear of the shoe that the cover leaves open.) The cover is also off when using current generation WR Pentax flash with no "boot" over the shoe, so it is hard to say. I always assumed that the hot shoe as with the flash itself had seals where the wires pass into the body. On thing is for sure, the contacts are more likely to remain free of dust and grunge with the cover in place. Not that it makes much difference, but the hot shoe cover design predates the WR bodies by several years.


Steve

[richandfleur]

Let's not create any urban legends! The hot shoe cover is just a cover and does not create a seal, though I totally get what you are saying.


Steve

lol I spotted that and it got me thinking for a moment too...

[Racer X 69]

I absolutely agree, particularly when photographic or video proof is used to promote a feature. As many of us are aware, Pelican markets a line of case luggage intended for cameras and other sensitive stuff. Their cases are widely regarded as the best prevention one might offer one's gear and rightly so. They also stand behind their product and will replace, free of charge, a case that fails in its task, though with the value of the contents explicitly excluded. They do not include that last disclaimer in any of their marketing or product description.*

Still though, two wrongs does not make a right. Pentax should include a strongly-worded qualifying statement indicating that the portrayal demonstrates the quality of construction, but should not be taken as proof of real-world performance. In other words, "You mileage may vary".


Steve

* The situation with Pelican is a little more complicated. For example, the model 1510 carry-on case is spec'd and advertised to be waterproof to 30' (9.1 m), but warrantied to 1 m for 30 minutes.

Kind of like racing safety gear.

The text here is boilerplate on everything, helmets, fire retardant clothing, fire systems, harnesses, seats, window nets, anything marketed for the safety of the driver or other participants.

WARNING
Motorsports are dangerous. No warranty or representation is made as to product’s ability to protect the user from any injury or death. The user assumes that risk. The preceding was presented with the information available at the time of writing and is the opinion of the writer. It is not meant to be comprehensive or is it endorsed by SIMPSON. For compete information, contact your sanctioning body.

You pay your money, and take your chances.

[Racer X 69]

By the way, my K-mount gear has never failed to perform.

Ever.

So count me in.

[Racer X 69]

Let's not create any urban legends! The hot shoe cover is just a cover and does not create a seal, though I totally get what you are saying.


Steve

But having it in place when the camera is getting doused would allow moisture to settle under it. Corrosion could set in.


Say, that makes me wonder. Every DSLR I every bought has had the cover on nearly all the time, as I rarely bother with a flash. Perhaps some dielectric compound should be applied to the exposed metal contacts and then the cover returned to the shoe? It would keep oxygen from getting to the contacts, so oxidation should be prevented.

And silicone dielectric compound also lubricates silicone rubber seals.

Just sayin'.

[clackers]

And we have another poster discovering that we need to be prudent with our gear, no matter how it's advertised:

HD Pentax-D FA 24-70mmF2.8ED SDM WR - PentaxForums.com

[stevebrot]

And we have another poster discovering that we need to be prudent with our gear, no matter how it's advertised:

HD Pentax-D FA 24-70mmF2.8ED SDM WR - PentaxForums.com

Taps plays softly in the distance...



This is particularly sad since it sounds like the lens may have been loose in standing water at the bottom of the bag and not mounted to the camera.


Steve

[normhead]

You pay your money, and take your chances.

You pay for increasing your odds, but, you can still lose. What lousy ad copy this would be. "Pentax WR decreases your chance of water or dust damage to 1 in 50, or 2% of the sample., but if it happens to you, it's 100% of your sample, isn't it." That's bound to sell a lot of lenses and cameras.

[Not a Number]

"Pentax WR decreases your chance of water or dust damage to 1 in 50, or 2% of the sample., but if it happens to you, it's 100% of your sample, isn't it." That's bound to sell a lot of lenses and cameras.

What are the chances of water or dust damage without WR?

[mercifulreleases]

Glad to hear it. I wasn't that lucky. Servicemen told me that repair will cost about $370. But they realize that situation is not very pleasant, so they decided to give me 50% discount.

Well, strictly speaking this goes under the category of Precision being an extremely good company. They received my camera with a summary that it seemed not to be working within the repair warranty window, and repaired it for free with zero questions asked. I was actually all ready for a discussion of the root cause, and would have been very open to paying had they asked.

It is interesting to contrast my experience with Bromfield/Precision with Adorama/Pentax. When I first killed the viewfinder, I phoned up Adorama customer service, had a bit of run-around, was told that they no longer handle Pentax repairs themselves, and given some third party phone numbers out of NYC (I live in Boston). Ricoh has a big office in Boston, but they couldn't even find a Pentax repair site, let alone help intermediate delivery. Bromfield told me to just bring it in, said that they'd find a repair company for me, and then handled bundling/shipping to several repair companies until they found one that could get the parts. I'm betting that next time I need a new camera, I'll simply visit my friends and buy a Sony or Nikon.

[BigMackCam]

But having it in place when the camera is getting doused would allow moisture to settle under it. Corrosion could set in.

I did some shooting one weekend from a speedboat, and my K-3 + grip and DA*60-250 got very wet indeed. Back on land, I cleaned and dried the camera and lens, but I didn't remove the grip. A few days later, I took it off so I could give the camera a thorough clean, and the area around the tripod socket had started to corrode. There was obviously some salt water between the grip and the body, and it took just a few days to start eating into the magnesium alloy. It's very minor, actually... After cleaning and drying, I just used some satin touch-up paint on the pitting to protect it, and you'd barely know it was there. But, it's a cautionary tale... The area between the grip and body can hold water even when you think you've dried everything off properly.

[normhead]

What are the chances of water or dust damage without WR?

Pretty much 100%. Any non WR lens needs to be throughly dried if immersed. My FA 50 macro had to be partially disassembled so I could blow warm air through it. People just don't make videos where they rinse off their non WR lenses in the sink. That's a point lost on those critical of the video.

That being said, drying off your gear as soon as possible and not having it exposed to weather for long periods of time is a no brainer. Water has a way if finding it's way into everything over time. My Optio 90W had water in it when i found it after being submerged for at least a month, and run over by ATVs a few times. But it worked when dried out. And it's waterproof to 7 feet, not just water resistant.

Buying a WR lens is no reason for getting sloppy taking care of your gear.
A WR lens will be more resistant to water damage than a non-WR lens. Not impervious, but if you take a lot of images around water, they save a lot of grief. We've immersed two lenses already this year in camera accidents around water and boats. IN both occasions, hours of assembly, disassembly and blow drying was needed to save the lenses involved, I've had WR lenses in similar situations, with no ill effects, needing no more than wiping them down with a paper towel stored in my camera bag.

[NS_Sailor]

I did some shooting one weekend from a speedboat, and my K-3 + grip and DA*60-250 got very wet indeed. Back on land, I cleaned and dried the camera and lens, but I didn't remove the grip. A few days later, I took it off so I could give the camera a thorough clean, and the area around the tripod socket had started to corrode. There was obviously some salt water between the grip and the body, and it took just a few days to start eating into the magnesium alloy. It's very minor, actually... After cleaning and drying, I just used some satin touch-up paint on the pitting to protect it, and you'd barely know it was there. But, it's a cautionary tale... The area between the grip and body can hold water even when you think you've dried everything off properly.

You've raised a good point for just about anything that comes in contact with salt water.

As you can well imagine over my career I've come across incidents where things that shouldn't have come in contact with salt water eventually did. When this happened the standard procedure when this happened was to as quickly as possible after the contact with the salt water, wipe all areas where salt water may have penetrated with fresh water and in some extreme cases completely immerse the effected equipment in fresh water then disassemble and dry everything. It's not so much the water that caused the corrosion is the reaction to the salt and other minerals in the water that remains after the water evaporates and the oxygen in the atmosphere that causes the corrosion

[jddwoods]

My one brush with evaluating weather resistance. While taking a weekend trip at the Delaware shore I went out to photograph the beach after a nasty storm had departed. I was taking pictures with K-3 with DA 40 Limited on the camera after the rain stopped, while standing on a deck with stairs leading down to the beach. I misjudged how close the surf was crashing close to the stairs and got hit with a sandy, salty wave. My clothes and camera got hit with lots of sandy salt water. I turned the camera off immediately and returned to my hotel room to clean up and dry off both myself and my camera and lens. Long story short, no problem with the lens or the camera. After I thoroughly wiped it down with towels lightly moistened with fresh water followed by dry towels lens and camera both OK.