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.”