[yucatanPentax]

Perhaps that would be more effective. A John Wayne type with a .45 on each hip and a piece of straw in his mouth in a public service announcement saying "Hey, don't you try that warranty crap here with no Pentax. Not after you let that camera get slightly moist."

Not sure that is working out for Alec Baldwin!!!

[Bert Meijering]

I had mij new pentax k3 3 with me in a little rain voor a half hour.
It stopt working in about 3 hours.
corrosie the repair office tells me.
nou I have to wait for mounts because its no warranty.
Are there more on the forum whit the same problem?

[BigMackCam]

I had mij new pentax k3 3 with me in a little rain voor a half hour.
It stopt working in about 3 hours.
corrosie the repair office tells me.
nou I have to wait for mounts because its no warranty.
Are there more on the forum whit the same problem?

Sorry to hear that, Bert...

Which lens were you using - was it a WR or AW-rated model? Were all rubber port doors on the camera fully closed? Did you wipe away any standing water from the body? Did it sit on wet surfaces for any length of time? Where is the corrosion referred to by the repair office?

Note that water damage with any brand of camera isn't covered by warranty - it's not just Pentax...

[35mmfilmfan]

While I am sorry for those who have had equipment damaged by meteorological situations, I would suggest that a certain amount of responsibility and care should be taken in the equipment's use. When I am in unfavourable conditions, I make sure the equipment is exposed to the elements for very limited periods, usually tucking it inside my jacket or shirt except when actually in use, and wiping water or snow from it after taking the shot(s) with pocket tissues. So far, this has proved successful in preventing damage to my kit. No criticism to those affected is intended, but I feel this is a situation where a little common sense may be applied advantageously.

[Mikesul]

Agreed. Mistakes will always happen but it is always wise to err on the side of caution.

[MarkJerling]

I had mij new pentax k3 3 with me in a little rain voor a half hour.
It stopt working in about 3 hours.
corrosie the repair office tells me.
nou I have to wait for mounts because its no warranty.
Are there more on the forum whit the same problem?

Sorry to hear that Bert. Any luck with your insurance?

[Wheatfield]

Sorry to hear that, Bert...

Which lens were you using - was it a WR or AW-rated model? Were all rubber port doors on the camera fully closed? Did you wipe away any standing water from the body? Did it sit on wet surfaces for any length of time? Where is the corrosion referred to by the repair office?

Note that water damage with any brand of camera isn't covered by warranty - it's not just Pentax...

One hopes this isn't the start of the discovery of a flaw either in the design or the build of the camera.
The discovory of the sensor spot problem and the AF problem with the early run K5s started much the same way as this thread.

Pentax talks up the weather resistance of their cameras. Granted they don't make any promises but they do raise expectations.
Presuming a WR lens and no ports being left open, the camera shouldn't fail in the conditions Bert described.

[BigMackCam]

One hopes this isn't the start of the discovery of a flaw either in the design or the build of the camera.
The discovory of the sensor spot problem and the AF problem with the early run K5s started much the same way as this thread.

Pentax talks up the weather resistance of their cameras. Granted they don't make any promises but they do raise expectations.
Presuming a WR lens and no ports being left open, the camera shouldn't fail in the conditions Bert described.

Taken at face value, I'd agree. The problem is, there are so many variables with weather resistance. The K-5 sensor spot and AF issues weren't influenced by user practices, weather conditions or any other factors - they either existed or they didn't. With weather resistance, each circumstance is unique. Still, given Ricoh's claims, you'd expect half-an-hour's use in light rain to be OK - assuming all other best practices were followed...

[Bert Meijering]

Sorry to hear that, Bert...

Which lens were you using - was it a WR or AW-rated model? Were all rubber port doors on the camera fully closed? Did you wipe away any standing water from the body? Did it sit on wet surfaces for any length of time? Where is the corrosion referred to by the repair office?

Note that water damage with any brand of camera isn't covered by warranty - it's not just Pentax...

The lens was all weather. All the doors where closed. I dried the camera every time I used it. And it was a little dripping rain.
The problem is not the damage cost because it is covert by insurances.
Wat I don't like is that I have to wait for repair because it's no warranty.
It's now more than three month.

[BigMackCam]

The lens was all weather. All the doors where closed. I dried the camera every time I used it. And it was a little dripping rain.
The problem is not the damage cost because it is covert by insurances.
Wat I don't like is that I have to wait for repair because it's no warranty.
It's now more than three month.

That's very unfortunate and disappointing, Bert. A lot of water damage examples cast some doubt on user practices or circumstances, but in your case it seems as if the weather resistance simply hasn't lived up to Ricoh's claims in a quite non-demanding situation. In your shoes, I'd be invoking my consumer rights, informing Ricoh that the camera wasn't "fit for purpose" in relation to the claimed weather resistance, and politely demanding either an immediate replacement or full refund of the purchase price under the Consumer Rights Act of 2015 (or the EU equivalent) in preference to legal recourse. If that didn't work, I'd inform my credit card company and explain that I would join them as a party to a legal financial claim, such that they are jointly liable. In many instances, the credit card company will then refund the customer and take up the issue with the manufacturer... and if that didn't work, finally, I'd be tempted to take formal legal action... but, of course, there are costs associated with that.

[MarkJerling]

The lens was all weather. All the doors where closed. I dried the camera every time I used it. And it was a little dripping rain.
The problem is not the damage cost because it is covert by insurances.
Wat I don't like is that I have to wait for repair because it's no warranty.
It's now more than three month.

Very disconcerting indeed. I used my K-5 often in steady rain during kids soccer matches and the K-1ii in similarly wet conditions and both cameras function perfectly.
I would expect the new K-3III to be able to handle a bit of light rain.

Repairs can, of course, take time. When my K-1ii had to go to Japan after the hotshoe mount damage, it was a long drawn out affair, partly due to Covid.

[Wheatfield]

Taken at face value, I'd agree. The problem is, there are so many variables with weather resistance. The K-5 sensor spot and AF issues weren't influenced by user practices, weather conditions or any other factors - they either existed or they didn't. With weather resistance, each circumstance is unique. Still, given Ricoh's claims, you'd expect half-an-hour's use in light rain to be OK - assuming all other best practices were followed...

The K5 problems were, however, caused by poor design (buttons falling off), poor manufacturing (sensor spots), and poor quality control (AF errors in anything other than broad daylight on some cameras due to cumulative results from out of spec components))
We now have 2 complaints on one web forum that may be caused by poor design (seals not up to the task due to a design flaw, poor manufacturing (seals or seats not manufactured correctly), or poor quality control (seals on some (or all) cameras not installed correctly).

Giving both posters the benefit of the doubt that their use descriptions are accurate, neither camera should have failed, even though the OP has indicated his camera's problem wasn't exactly weather related.

Two complaints of the same kind on one web forum for a recently released low volume specialty product doesn't look good.

[Serkevan]

The K5 problems were, however, caused by poor design (buttons falling off), poor manufacturing (sensor spots), and poor quality control (AF errors in anything other than broad daylight on some cameras due to cumulative results from out of spec components))
We now have 2 complaints on one web forum that may be caused by poor design (seals not up to the task due to a design flaw, poor manufacturing (seals or seats not manufactured correctly), or poor quality control (seals on some (or all) cameras not installed correctly).

Giving both posters the benefit of the doubt that their use descriptions are accurate, neither camera should have failed, even though the OP has indicated his camera's problem wasn't exactly weather related.

Two complaints of the same kind on one web forum for a recently released low volume specialty product doesn't look good.

At face value, the description in the OP is stretching the limit of "reasonable" weather resistance enough that I am not surprised the camera failed. Bert's description, however, is significantly below what I would expect, from personal use, to be the threshold for the K-7 and K-1, and is indeed cause for concern.

[ThorSanchez]

The K5 problems were, however, caused by poor design (buttons falling off), poor manufacturing (sensor spots), and poor quality control (AF errors in anything other than broad daylight on some cameras due to cumulative results from out of spec components))
We now have 2 complaints on one web forum that may be caused by poor design (seals not up to the task due to a design flaw, poor manufacturing (seals or seats not manufactured correctly), or poor quality control (seals on some (or all) cameras not installed correctly).

Giving both posters the benefit of the doubt that their use descriptions are accurate, neither camera should have failed, even though the OP has indicated his camera's problem wasn't exactly weather related.

Two complaints of the same kind on one web forum for a recently released low volume specialty product doesn't look good.

If we're going by small sample anecdotal evidence, I took the K-3 III out to a cold, rainy soccer game recently and it was fine. I wiped it off and it works same as it ever did. The photo here shows the rain clearly at larger size, not as clear at web sizes. But it was definitely raining and kind of miserably cold.

[Mikesul]

The K5 problems were, however, caused by poor design (buttons falling off), poor manufacturing (sensor spots), and poor quality control (AF errors in anything other than broad daylight on some cameras due to cumulative results from out of spec components))
We now have 2 complaints on one web forum that may be caused by poor design (seals not up to the task due to a design flaw, poor manufacturing (seals or seats not manufactured correctly), or poor quality control (seals on some (or all) cameras not installed correctly).

Giving both posters the benefit of the doubt that their use descriptions are accurate, neither camera should have failed, even though the OP has indicated his camera's problem wasn't exactly weather related.

Two complaints of the same kind on one web forum for a recently released low volume specialty product doesn't look good.

2? You must be kidding.