[aslyfox]

How could the camera get wet if it was in a boat bag? . . .

boat bags have been known to leak and/or not seal properly

---

Last edited by aslyfox; 09-27-2021 at 10:02 AM.

[biz-engineer]

Just buy another Pentax K3 III and ask the Pentax rep to sell you a new Pentax K3 III but apply a customer loyalty price discount to it.

---------- Post added 27-09-21 at 19:01 ----------

boat bags have been known to leak or not seal properly

Doesn't say if the camera got wet from water that was inside the bag, or if the camera was splashed outside the bag and kept dry into the bag. Anyway, if I was Ricoh official, and someone tell me his K3III stopped working after being on a kayak, I don't want to know the details, for me I consider the camera was dropped in water (no matter if true or not, I'm not supposed to believe the customer who says that camera wasn't under water). Once you say the word "Kayak" , it's too late..

[zapp]

Ricoh will act as soon as you sue them. They have to answer lawyers, etc.
On the other hand they never claimed any waterproofing standard or IP class, so you will get answers but not anew camera unless you are really lucky. Better business bureau may help here at low cost/risk.

[brainwave]

I just wanted to clarify that the OPs experience is not unique, and is not limited to D-SLRs. Every company in the electronics business touts the water resistance of relevant products, but no company is ready to replace water damaged products. The reason is, firstly, legal. They don't have to do it as per existing laws. Secondly, water sealing is notoriously hard to check. Things that are water resistant against splashes are not immune to being submerged. Amongst thing that can be submerged, those that work with 10 cm of water immersion do not work at 30, those that work at 30 cm dont work at 100 cm. How can a company verify what exactly transpired? Same reason "military grade, drop proof" laptops are not covered on breakage. IP69 dust and water resistant phones are not covered against water damage or dust inside the casing. Watches that are GUARANTEED WATERPROOF are really not guaranteed for their water-proofedness.

Ricoh is not unique. While I agree, it would be in the best interest of the customer if they did back their claim with a warranty, it is not fair to blame them for their policy which almost every company has, including Apple, Google, Samsung, Tissot, Rolex!

Do Nikon, SOny, Canon give water warrenties? AFAIK they dont.

---

Last edited by brainwave; 09-27-2021 at 11:04 AM.

[BigMackCam]

I'm sorry to hear of this.

Other camera manufacturers, like Ricoh, specifically exclude water damage from their warranties, and it's easy to see why when they only have the customer's word as to the circumstances in which it occurred. There's any number of ways that weather resistance can be breached or made worthless through anything from simple mistakes to blatant risk-taking, and any number of stories that customers could manufacture to explain the damage... BUT, Ricoh makes a big deal of weather resistance in marketing, and that's the part I have a problem with. I'm a fan of Pentax cameras, and generally like what Ricoh has done with the brand in a difficult market - but they do find ways to test the loyalty of their customer base

If you should pursue this further, I wish you the very best of luck and hope you'll keep us posted on progress and outcome...

[Wheatfield]

How could the camera get wet if it was in a boat bag?

You did read the OP, right?

[pete-tarmigan]

Unfortunately, water damage does classify as user abuse. There is nothing circular about that argument.

Unfortunately the wording says that the warranty does not cover damage resulting from misuse or water or abuse. It does not say that water damage resulting from user abuse or misuse is not covered. The wording allows Ricoh to avoid warranty claims from water damage arising from any and all causes.

“This warranty does not cover finishes or batteries, nor does it cover damages resulting from accident, misuse, abuse, dirt, water, battery leakage, tampering, servicing performed or attempted by unauthorized service agencies."

However, this is entirely aside from whether the advertised weather-resistance is misleading. I guess the moral of the story is to buy insurance or be prepared to pay out of your own pocket if the camera is damaged by water.

---

Last edited by pete-tarmigan; 09-27-2021 at 11:44 AM. Reason: clarity and completeness.

[biz-engineer]

You did read the OP, right?

Yes, I read this: "The conditions were ideal, the camera was kept in a boat bag between shots. It did get wet. It was never submerged". I can't find anywhere how the camera got wet, so I'm asking.

[volley]

Yes, I read this: "The conditions were ideal, the camera was kept in a boat bag between shots. It did get wet. It was never submerged". I can't find anywhere how the camera got wet, so I'm asking.

Safe to assume the camera got wet when it was out of the bag for shooting ... not very practical to shoot when the camera is in a boat bag

[BigMackCam]

Safe to assume the camera got wet when it was out of the bag for shooting ... not very practical to shoot when the camera is in a boat bag

The devil could be in the detail, though... for example, was it wet when it was put in the bag, or was it wiped down? If left wet, was it like that for long? How wet was it - a bit of spray, or dripping wet? It doesn't change my own views, but I can see why @biz-engineer is asking. There's a big difference between a bit of light rain or a few minor splashes wiped off every few minutes, and a camera that's dripping wet and left sitting in a bag to stew...

[rr1736]

I wish you luck with this problem. The advertisement does indicate that the cameras can withstand getting wet . You have said the camera was not submerged so water splashed on the camera should be within the capacity of the camera to withstand. I would hope Pentax make it right for you

[brainwave]

Many photographers consider themselves fortunate if they own even one piece of great gear. I’ve found the new Pentax K-3 III to be one of those pieces of gear. That is perhaps why I found my recent experience with the K-3 III and Ricoh to be so disappointing. In my view, there appears to be a disconnect between some of Pentax’s marketing and its warranty.

There are a lot of details here, but I’ll try to be as concise as I can. And to be clear, my experience may be unique, “your mileage may vary,” as they say. It can be unreasonable to draw overly broad conclusions from one event. But in the spirit of sharing photographic experiences among those in the Pentax community, I thought many of you would find my experience interesting. At the end of this you might just think, “well, too bad for him,” and move on.

The short headline is this, while on vacation my K-3 III got wet, died, and Pentax won’t replace it. Both Pentax and Precision Camera Repair say the electronics were corroded so repairs don’t make economic or practical sense.

It happened while my wife and I were on a kayak day tour on Lake Superior along Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore on Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. The conditions were ideal, the camera was kept in a boat bag between shots. It did get wet. It was never submerged. As a point of reference, I did a nearly identical kayak trip along the same coast five years ago with my K-3. It performed flawlessly. I used the same lens for both trips, the DA 18-135mm WR. Based on Pentax marketing I believed I was using the camera and lens well within their design limits. Pentax touts its weather resistant sealing as an important feature of its cameras and lenses.

After PCR said the camera could not be repaired, it referred the camera to Ricoh at my request as a warranty claim. PCR never sent me written documentation about the issues. Allow me to also say that the Ricoh company rep I spoke with on the phone about all of this was always polite, professional and respectful. He has a difficult job and I don’t think he could have done it any better.

The company rep and I spoke twice on the phone. The first call was to ask in detail about what happened. The second was to deliver the news that Ricoh would not repair or replace the camera.

The second call highlights what in my opinion is an apparent inconsistency between some of Pentax’s marketing and the camera’s warranty. The customer rep read me a lengthy, and clearly carefully worded statement about Ricoh’s decision to deny my claim. Because the statement was lengthy and detailed I asked him to email it to me. He said he’d have to ask his boss first. I received this email response: “As we discussed on the phone, I asked if it would be possible to provide you with a written statement they indicated that the repair estimate from PCR is a written statement indicating that the camera is water damaged and beyond economical repair.” In other words Pentax decided not to provide me with a written explanation for why it refused to replace the camera.

As mentioned, I never received a written statement from Precision Camera Repair.

Some of the reasons given in the statement read to me on the phone did not make sense to me, which is one reason why I wanted to see them in print in order to make sure I understood them correctly. Understandably, the company rep could not elaborate on what he was told to read to me.

I am going to paraphrase here from parts of that statement. I believe I have the core of these statements from Ricoh correct.

The camera can not have failed because Pentax has not received any other complaints about cameras from that lot number.
My questions about this:
How many cameras are in the lot?
How many have been sold and how many are still “on the shelf” and therefore not in use and subject to real-world conditions?
A camera in that lot could have the same flaw(s) but never have gotten wet, so the flaw hasn’t been revealed.
Similarly, without knowing what every camera that has been sold has been subjected to, how is it possible to know that how many cameras have been subject to water without any issue?
This does not take into account normal manufacturing tolerances and the possibility, however rare, that one camera that didn’t meet standards got through.
In the event that Ricoh does get reports of similar problems from other K-3 III owners, will it revisit my case?

The fact the water damaged the camera beyond repair is proof it was abused, violating the terms of the warranty.
My opinion about this:
This is circular logic: If the camera failed, it has to be your fault because the fact the camera failed is proof you abused it.

The Pentax warranty (excerpt below**) shows that Ricoh is adhering to the wording of that document. And the company does have every right to protect its interests. But it feels to me this is inconsistent with the company’s marketing. Google “Pentax water sealing gif” and among the images you’ll find is a K-7 with the same lens that I used being sprayed with water along with other similar images. Certainly the K-3 III is a more robust camera than the K-7. The conditions that caused my camera to fail were nowhere near those depicted in those images.

What will I do next? I’m not sure. I received my very first Pentax as a high school graduation gift from my parents in 1978. I thoroughly enjoy using Pentax equipment. Changing systems is an expensive pain. Shelling out another $2,000 for another K-3 III isn’t ideal either. My original k-3 is still a workhorse so I will continue using that while I decide what to do next.

If you’ve gotten to this point in my overly-long missive, thank you. I hope you find my experience in this instance of some value.


**Additional notes:
In a Q&A section on “Performance for the environment” Pentax says:
“Yes. There are sealing components used in the dials, buttons, joints of the camera, making it both dust-proof and water-resistant, and anticipating use in cold locations, PENTAX has subjected the K-3 Mark III to exacting environmental tests at temperatures as low as –10°C.”

From the Pentax press release on March 30, 2021: (italics added)
“The camera's compact, rugged body is dustproof and weather resistant, making it suitable for use in the most extreme environmental conditions.”

The warranty says:
“This warranty does not cover finishes or batteries, nor does it cover damages resulting from accident, misuse, abuse, dirt, water, battery leakage, tampering, servicing performed or attempted by unauthorized service agencies.”

The thing i am MOST curious about is....what did wife say after this happened? My wife would be TERRIBLY upset if I managed to damage my unholy investment in the K-1 ii (where I am from, India, these things are UNAFFORDABLE lol).

Best Regards
Brahm

[aslyfox]

Ricoh will act as soon as you sue them. They have to answer lawyers, etc. . . .

a lot of attorneys will offer free consultations

some might do a contingency contract. - the client is responsible for all expenses but unless there is a recovery, the attorney does not get paid, if there is a recovery, the attorney gets a percentage fee quite often a third of the recovery

some attorneys might take the case if the OP would pay an hourly rate plus expenses

won't take long for an attorney to run up billable hours and expenses in excess of the cost of a replacement K 3 III

[stevebrot]

The short headline is this, while on vacation my K-3 III got wet, died, and Pentax won’t replace it. Both Pentax and Precision Camera Repair say the electronics were corroded so repairs don’t make economic or practical sense.

That is sad. Do you have homeowner's or renter's insurance or perhaps something like a Mac extended warranty? Those might be a remedy.

Not to blow one' own horn, but the link below is to a sticky on the Pentax Forums dSLR forum that provides a rundown on WR and other seal technologies that applies to any brand camera or lens that features such...

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


Steve

[stevebrot]

boat bags have been known to leak and/or not seal properly

Ditto for expensive sealed cases (remember one very sad story from a white water trip). A dive enclosure is the gold standard and even those will leak give enough time and/or pressure.

Note: I will confess to having used my K-3 with an unsealed Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.0|C under conditions of heavy mist from falling water with resultant camera meltdown despite a thorough wipe-down immediately afterwards. All came back to life after 20 minutes with both camera and lens (detached) in the warm sun, though it is likely there is internal evidence of the intrusion. I don't know if the photo was worth the risk, but it was "explored" on Flickr.


Elowah Falls, Columbia River Gorge


Steve