[MarkJerling]

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

I have a Landrover. I think I understand perfectly well!

Heie shows us what Pentaxes can handle. (Don't try this at home folks!)

You Tube

You Tube

[Racer X 69]

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.

I was wrong.

Alex did not use a K5 & K3, he used his K5 & K7 to make the video. Also, as mentioned at the beginning of the video, it was the second take, so he did the dirt then wash off thing at least twice.

I'm demonstrating the weather sealing and dust resistance offered by PENTAX's bodies and lenses (www.pentaximaging.com and www.pentaxforums.com) while deployed in Afghanistan by covering them in sand, small rocks, and dust, and then rinsing them off in the shower.

PENTAX K-7 + DA* 50-135 f/2.8
PENTAX K-5 + D-BG4 Battery Grip + DA* 16-50 f/2.8

Since this video was uploaded (July 2012), I have also owned/used the K-30, K-50, K-5 IIs, K-3 (plus D-BG5 battery grip) and can personally attest to their weather sealing and ability to withstand the above.

The video:

You Tube

You Tube

[MrB1]

And IMHO the difference between Water Resistance and Waterproof should be apparent....

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

It might be apparent to you and many others here, but there might be others who do not know the difference. And the members here are likely to constitute only a proportion of those who purchase Pentax equipment anyway. Some who have got their Pentax gear because of the advertised WR might not understand its limitations. Some of those users might come here to comment when it breaks down due to being used beyond its capabilities, because they haven't been given sufficiently clear advice and warning by Pentax in the literature that comes with the gear.

Heie shows us what Pentaxes can handle. (Don't try this at home folks!)

Alex did not use a K5 & K3, he used his K5 & K7 to make the video. Also, as mentioned at the beginning of the video, it was the second take, so he did the dirt then wash off thing at least twice.

To me it seems reasonable to expect WR to be effective in that type of test. What he does not show is a zoom lens being repeatedly pumped in and out in those conditions - this is the scenario likely to force dust and water past one or more seals, and the action which an uninformed user might be likely to do. There might also be some users who have continued to zoom a WR lens in dust or rain without a problem - in my view they are playing Russian roulette and so far they have been very lucky.

Philip

[redbirdpete]

I've used a K100D in the rain with the kit lens - I live in a very rainy part of the world. It's never failed. Yes, I did keep it under my coat as much as possible, but it has certainly been damp if not actually wet. I did treat it a bit more carefully than my old MEF, which was distinctly tired after 20 years of knocking around in cars, climbing mountains, standing in the rain waiting for passing planes or trains etc.. If I had realised how many electronics are in the MEF I might have been more careful with it too...

Now I have a K200D and WR lenses and I feel safer - but I still take the same precautions. These are expensive purchases for me and I need them to last.

Advertising is advertising - despite all the scrutiny given to car MPG figures very few of them are actually achievable in normal road use - hence the acronym YMMV.

The varying consumer protection laws actually have made little difference - I still operate on the basis of 'buyer beware'.

[NS_Sailor]

I've just finished reading this thread and I would like to share my opinion on a couple of points based on what I've read and my experience working as engineer on a ship where failure of o-rings and other types of water resistant seals in sometimes benign conditions is a common occurrence.

There are some very hard and firm rules I've learned when it comes to o-rings and other such seals

Rule 1 - All o-ring seals will eventually fail
Rule 2 - The biggest enemy to o-ring seals especially in lenses is heat and friction. Heat will dry any natural lubricant in the o-ring material and the friction between the o-ring and the sliding barrel of the lens will eventually wear the sealing surface of the o-ring and reducing the sealing compression of the o-ring
Rule 3 - O-rings can be damaged during assembly and this damage can go undetected until the o-ring is subjected to conditions it is supposed to seal against.

So previous suggestions that internal o-ring seals especially in lenses should be replaced or at least lubricated regularly with a very high specialized o-ring lubricant (every 4-5 years depending on lens use) is a very good idea. It's also a good idea to inspect the orange/red o-ring at the lens mount along with the door seals and covers for drying, cracks and proper fit.

Finally my second opinion has to do with the term "Weather Resistant". In my opinion the word resistant on any kind of sealing on a piece equipment means that the sealing is designed to resist, in this case water and other environmental contaminants, from entering under normal conditions and may or may not effectively resist penetration under extreme conditions.

For example I don't think anyone would consider a very fine mesh screen as in a window to be weather resistant. Under the right conditions a screen will resist or even prevent the flow of water through it, if no other forces act upon it but water will pass through even if a gentle breeze blows against the screen.

[Racer X 69]

It might be apparent to you and many others here, but there might be others who do not know the difference. And the members here are likely to constitute only a proportion of those who purchase Pentax equipment anyway. Some who have got their Pentax gear because of the advertised WR might not understand its limitations. Some of those users might come here to comment when it breaks down due to being used beyond its capabilities, because they haven't been given sufficiently clear advice and warning by Pentax in the literature that comes with the gear.

Indeed.

But the fact that Pentax may not fully describe the limitations of the weather sealing doesn't make it 'fake' as some would contend. For those people, the dismal results they may have experienced is directly related to their carelessness and failure to take proper precautions to augment the weather resistance.

[richandfleur]

Look it's just plane lame to advertise on extremes and then significantly limit them in the fine print.


Pentax has in the past actively advertised practises that they themselves wouldn't support warranty wise if a fault was claimed against. That's poor, weather (lol) it's legally correct or not.


Listen to the wording of this video.

You Tube

You Tube

It's also clear that some models are more effectively sealed than others, with the K-7 and K-5 being particularly good by the looks of it, and apparently (based on other owner comments here) the K-3 less so.

[stevebrot]

It's also clear that some models are more effectively sealed than others, with the K-7 and K-5 being particularly good by the looks of it, and apparently (based on other owner comments here) the K-3 less so.

Interesting observation. Except for a very vocal few K-3 owners, I would not have pegged that model as having particularly poor WR. The K-7, K-5 series, and K-3 series bodies are very similar in terms of construction and neither of the other two had unusual WR issues. Come to think of it, I don't recall any model as having a reputation for seal failure. I joined PF in Spring of 2007 and just went back to that first year looking for early reports of K10D WR failures. I was looking for a specific thread (I believe it was titled "I think I killed my camera" or something like that where the user took it out for an hour of torrential rain in London, UK.

I have not found that one yet, but have been mildly entertained by some of the threads, with the high point being from a user who dropped their K10D from chest level on to a concrete sidewalk where it suffered "a broken viewfinder screen" (never did figure out what piece failed...the K10D lacked live view). He was insistent that a pro camera should have bumpers to avoid damage of that sort and that Pentax should replace the camera as being design defective. 100 posts later, someone talked the OP into buying camera armor. I don't know if he got his warranty replacement. In the first year of the K10D, the threads regarding WR were amazingly similar to those we get today and Adam's responses were almost identical to his current responses. I think three users managed to kill their cameras with rain water.


Steve

[aslyfox]

a thread which might be very helpful to read

About those WR body seals...User responsibility and best practice - PentaxForums.com

IMHO, YMMV

my thanks to the thread starter

[frogfoot]

Precision fixed the camera for free.

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.

[normhead]

This thread seems to be filled with outrage about advertisers lying. The people here are the same folks who buy SUVs and drive them up mountainsides, or on race courses. Are you still waiting for the Pontiac girl to tun up by your car with her wind machine? It is a simple fact of life that marketing claims stretch the truth. I personally would like to hold all industries to account for this. Food industries products with more than your daily recommended amount of sugar in a single serving being advertised as nutritious comes to mind.

The simple fact is buyer beware. Anyone who thinks different is simply an uneducated consumer. Pentax puts weather seals in their cameras and lenses marked WR. They are more weather resistant than lenses and bodies that don't have those seals. If that's not what you want, no problem, buy something else. You'll save money...

[rawr]

It's worth noting that users can very easily 'un-weatherseal' the best sealed cameras, Pentax or otherwise, by simple accidents like leaving the hot-shoe cover off, leaving the plug out of the microphone socket, closing a sealed cover whilst it had some grit in the seal etc etc.

Manufacturer WR claims (and IPS/ IEC 60529 ingress protection specifications too) will only work well if the user allows them to.

[richandfleur]

Interesting observation. Except for a very vocal few K-3 owners, I would not have pegged that model as having particularly poor WR.

I had the K-30 aperture failure, but have never had any bad weather sealing experience with any of my Pentax cameras, so this was based on the comments of others.

I do think it's poor form to have the advertising exceed what they'd actually cover though, so I can understand the frustration of others who have had an issue with it.

[stevebrot]

by simple accidents like leaving the hot-shoe cover off

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

[stevebrot]

I do think it's poor form to have the advertising exceed what they'd actually cover though, so I can understand the frustration of others who have had an issue with it.

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.