[stevebrot]

However, this appears not only in the non-WR K-r and the compact MX-1 manuals, but also in each WR camera manual that I've checked. It would seem that Ricoh should describe more clearly for users what WR means, and how WR bodies and lenses should/should not be used during adverse conditions.

Yes, and similar language is present in the user manuals of most fine cameras dating back several decades. If the WR feature on the body required maintenance, it would make sense to include instructions in the user guide. Instead, WR is treated in much the same way as the magnesium alloy body parts with the feature not being called out for special treatment beyond the obvious.* (Neither feature is mentioned in the K-3II manual.) I suppose Ricoh/Pentax should have been more obvious by including explicit language about things like exposure to solvents, heat, and cold that might degrade or incapacitate the seals in particular and should also have included a table detailing maximum times for immersion and various strength of rain as well as acceptable force (pressure) of splash or stream. Instead, they simply said, "Thou Shalt Not".


Steve

* I suppose it is only a matter of time before there is a report of someone soaking their magnesium-body camera in vinegar and sparking a hydrogen fire that destroys the neighborhood.

---

Last edited by stevebrot; 08-04-2017 at 06:26 AM.

[stevebrot]

it might be wise to treat a WR or AW designated camera/lens like an old film camera/lens, protect them as much as possible

When I read this, my mind wandered to the 60s-vintage Pentax Girl ads where the camera is shown being used in dusty, moist, and high impact environments. Of course, the manuals stated to not do any of those things.

You Tube

You Tube

I also remembered hiking many hundreds of miles with my Ricoh XR7 hanging off the side of my backpack, just swinging free.



This my buddy Roger, with his Nikon similarly swinging in the breeze.


Steve

[BigMackCam]

When I read this, my mind wandered to the 60s-vintage Pentax Girl ads

Thanks for posting those, Steve... I've never seen them before! And I think Ricoh should revive them by filming a new series of advertisements to distribute on YouTube... *This* is the kind of marketing that sells cameras !

[abruzzi]

I recently took a week long motorcycle trip around New Mexico. While it is the desert here, July and August are the rainy season. (Technically the monsoons begin at about 8pm on July 4th. I'm not kidding, usually the first rain of the season is just in time to rain out the fireworks.). I decided that I didn't trust the weather sealing on my K-3 II to just throw it in my tank bag for the trip. I also worried about the vibration and other less than ideal environments and their effect on a camera I just paid a thousand dollars on. Instead I snagged a new, open box Nikon AW1. It's rated to 49 feet submersion and 6 foot drop on concrete. It's not nearly as nice a camera as my K-3 II, but for less than half the price with both AW lenses, and being specifically designed for harsh environments, this seems like a better bike-trip camera. It doesn't seem like a good idea to push the physical limits of the camera too far.

[Digitalis]

I think we need to clear up the use of fake in this thread title:

Fake

1. not genuine; imitation or counterfeit.
synonyms:forgery, counterfeit, copy, sham, fraud, hoax, imitation, mock-up, dummy, reproduction, lookalike, likeness

In defense of pentax: there is no internationally recognized standard regarding camera weatherproofing, as "typical" weather varies considerably depending on where you are on this planet. So it is entirely up to the manufacturer to define the extent of weatherproofing. Pentax chose to go with weatherproofing to an above average degree - in my experience pentax cameras are more durable than other similarly priced products. To say that the weather resistance of the pentax K3 is fake, is disingenuous.

If you really did your research, you would know there is a big difference between weatherproofing, weather resistance. If a watch was advertised as a dive watch* but could not withstand being submerged for half an hour below 50m** then it would be fair to say that such a claim is patently false - and the manufacturer would be liable for damages, if the watch was used on a dive and it was rendered inoperable due to it not meeting the ISO standard for a dive watch.

Pentax hasn't made any specific claims about the weather resistance of their cameras - make of this what you will - but as many people have proven on online fora, and on youtube that pentax cameras have demonstrably shown to be able to take a considerable amount of physical abuse and bad weather where similar, and more expensive products from major manufacturers would fail, yet the pentax cameras remain functional.

* The typical diver's watch will have a water resistance of around 200 to 300 m
**Ref. ISO 6425. "Minimum depth for a diving watch is 100m or greater". Also, ISO 22810. "ratings for endurance against ingress of external contaminants, external impact, high temperatures and resistance to magnetism: dive watches have to be able to withstand 50 hours while immersed in 30cm of water. No evidence of water intrusion or condensation is allowed."

[aslyfox]

I think we need to clear up the use of fake in this thread title:

Fake

1. not genuine; imitation or counterfeit.
synonyms:forgery, counterfeit, copy, sham, fraud, hoax, imitation, mock-up, dummy, reproduction, lookalike, likeness

In defense of pentax: there is no internationally recognized standard regarding camera weatherproofing, as "typical" weather varies considerably depending on where you are on this planet. So it is entirely up to the manufacturer to define the extent of weatherproofing. Pentax chose to go with weatherproofing to an above average degree - in my experience pentax cameras are more durable than other similarly priced products. To say that the weather resistance of the pentax K3 is fake, is disingenuous.

If you really did your research, you would know there is a big difference between weatherproofing, weather resistance. If a watch was advertised as a dive watch* but could not withstand being submerged for half an hour below 50m** then it would be fair to say that such a claim is patently false - and the manufacturer would be liable for damages, if the watch was used on a dive and it was rendered inoperable due to it not meeting the ISO standard for a dive watch.

Pentax hasn't made any specific claims about the weather resistance of their cameras - make of this what you will - but as many people have proven on online fora, and on youtube that pentax cameras have demonstrably shown to be able to take a considerable amount of physical abuse and bad weather where similar, and more expensive products from major manufacturers would fail, yet the pentax cameras remain functional.

* The typical diver's watch will have a water resistance of around 200 to 300 m
**Ref. ISO 6425. "Minimum depth for a diving watch is 100m or greater". Also, ISO 22810. "ratings for endurance against ingress of external contaminants, external impact, high temperatures and resistance to magnetism: dive watches have to be able to withstand 50 hours while immersed in 30cm of water. No evidence of water intrusion or condensation is allowed."

so

" inaccurate "

would be your suggested change in title ???

[Digitalis]

I think it would be more accurate and less provocative to inquire exactly what level of care should be taken with Pentax cameras regarding their weather resistance - not to declare one of the key features of the Pentax camera line up as being an outright fraud. There are always caveats involved with equipment that is subjected to extreme environments. Even an M1 Abrams tank needs a service every now and then and they are...built like...tanks.

[victormeldrew]

People here seem to fall into two camps. Broadly, this seems to be based on the consumer protection regime in their locality...and in the end it is this that matters most.

Camp A: The manufacturer may have suggested Weather Resistance in naming/advertising their product, but technically this is difficult to achieve, semantically the word might not mean what it might seem to mean, and anyway they wrote some small print somewhere that says if the weather is water-based and some of that weather gets in, there will be no consideration that this might be a failure of the WR system. Your loss...buy again.

Camp B: The manufacturer suggested WR and so at the very least you should expect some basic common weather to be resisted, at least to the extent that is shown in the advertising (i.e. using it in the rain). If that weather gets in, then the system has failed and so the issue should be put right, at least within the warranty period. To assume that the user must have done something wrong, without even checking the integrity of the seals, is unfair. To say 'oh, we didn't really mean that, in fact we mean nothing at all' is misleading, therefore unlawful.

I live in the EU with a fairly tough consumer protection regime, so I am firmly in camp B. Here, it matters not one jot what the service centre or manufacturer wants to honour or otherwise. According to the law, what matters is what 'a reasonable person would expect' of the product. Given advertising that shows the product being used in the rain, and the name 'weather resistant', a reasonable person would expect to be able to use the product in rain - an extremely common weather type. A small claims court case here, with a declaration under oath that you have only used the camera in the rain (as advertised), not underwater, would almost certainly result in an order to refund or replace the camera, unless the manufacturer can show any evidence to contradict the claim. But this would require a certain amount of upfront cost, which is likely to put off a lot of people.

[richandfleur]

I agree, there tend to be two schools of thought on this.


One is brand defensive, and the other is looking at the image Ricoh/Pentax want to present of themselves and their products.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

You can't show images like a K-30 being hit with a solid stream of water, and say things like "you'll be right in a torrential downpour" (approx. 32s into that video), and say this in the sales blurb if your device can't actually match it:



Fully Weather-sealed, Dustproof, Coldproof Design
With 81 weather seals throughout the entire body, the K-50 ensures worry-free use in any weather condition or outdoor setting, be it rain or sand.
The K-50’s rugged, cold-proof design is also perfect for use in wet, snowy winter conditions, at temperatures as low as -10°C


I see they've reworded this to cover the KP etc now:


Dustproof, weather-resistant construction for A highly environment-resistant imaging system with a weather-resistant lens
To prevent the intrusion of water and dust into the interior, the PENTAX KP features 67 sealing parts, applied to the control buttons and dials, covers and exterior joints. By mounting an AW- or WR-series lens* and the optional, weather-resistant D-BG7 battery grip, they form a highly airtight digital imaging system that assures dependable performance even under unfavorable weather conditions.*
* AW stands for All Weather (dustproof and weather-resistant construction), while WR stands for Weather Resistant (simplified weather-resistant construction).
** To prevent breakdowns or malfunctions, the user is advised to wipe rain, water and dust off the camera body and dry it completely.

[stevebrot]

I ran into this thread from January, 2016 that is full of anecdotal stories regarding failed seals, dead cameras, near-death experiences, and miraculous success stories...

Torrential rainfall tested the limits of the weather sealing on my K-3 II - PentaxForums.com


Steve

[mercifulreleases]

I just wanted to mention the end result on my side. The good folk at Bromfield Camera in Boston (who intermediated the initial viewfinder repair executed by Precision Camera) told me that while Pentax was unlikely to honor the warranty given my impact abuse, Precision Camera would certainly honor their 90 day warranty on repairs. So upon my return to Boston, I dropped the camera off with Bromfield, who packed it up and sent it off to Precision. Neither Bromfiedl nor Precision asked any questions about precisely which lens I'd been using, and Precision fixed the camera for free. So I'm feeling pretty damn positive about both Bromfield and Precision.

Sadly, Precision didn't say much about the underlying cause. With any luck they did inspect the weather sealing, and on my side I'm going to avoid using the DA 16-85WR in actual rain. We'll see how that goes.

Happiness,
Andrew

[BigMackCam]

I just wanted to mention the end result on my side. The good folk at Bromfield Camera in Boston (who intermediated the initial viewfinder repair executed by Precision Camera) told me that while Pentax was unlikely to honor the warranty given my impact abuse, Precision Camera would certainly honor their 90 day warranty on repairs. So upon my return to Boston, I dropped the camera off with Bromfield, who packed it up and sent it off to Precision. Neither Bromfiedl nor Precision asked any questions about precisely which lens I'd been using, and Precision fixed the camera for free. So I'm feeling pretty damn positive about both Bromfield and Precision.

That's fantastic news, Andrew. A big "thumbs up" to both Bromfield and Precision

[panonski]

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?

been there - same situation - but I was splashed by couple of waves on the sea coast - during the shooting on windy day... I was in dilusion - the K3 is weather sealed.... Luckily, my service was able to do repair under the official 12 month waranty - otherwise it would be very expensive... But, I had to argue with service center for that... because it was salty water

water quickly came inside and caused shortbrake on flash - I CAN CONFIRMED HERE ON THIS TOPIC - WEATHER SEALED ON K 3 is not good - or it's completely fake

[BigMackCam]

Folks, please let's stop this talk of Pentax weather resistance being in any way "fake". It is ludicrous to suggest that the feature doesn't exist (and that's what "fake" implies). It's also both inflammatory and brand-bashing, which contravenes our forum rules.

We can all have opinions on the effectiveness of the weather-resistance, but let's not make preposterous claims, or I'll have to close the thread (at the very least).

Thanks

[MarkJerling]

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