[biz-engineer]

If my K3-III ever needs warranty repair and Ricoh rejects it, hello Cannon…I will sell everything…

Selling everything will be an emotional decision , it will not repair your camera, you'll have spent more money by going Canon and Canon won't give you more love than Ricoh , since those are businesses (i.e machines built to make money). Canon will just take your money, and you'll be customer number 09484523322xyz...

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 09-27-2021 at 08:44 PM.

[MarkJerling]

It's amazing how many people jump to the let's sue someone conclusion with out doing a cost analysis.
The problem the OP has is best dealt with by his insurance company not his lawyer.

Indeed. The other point people often forget (which does not apply in this case, of course) is that suing someone will have no benefit if the person you sue can't pay.

[MarkJerling]

Time for Ricoh to crap or get off the pot. This is your top of the line dslr, repair it. But make sure that the customer knows this is a one off deal as water damage is not covered. No second chance here as any water damage is on the owner now….I never take any of my cameras on a canoe [kayak-whatever] without a camera bag [housing]. My 1 K3-II has been down to 95 feet and it still works fine [I really miss my Nikonos 5]. If my K3-III ever needs warranty repair and Ricoh rejects it, hello Cannon…I will sell everything…

And then when your Canon fails, and Canon fails to deliver, it's hello Nikon. And then when the Nikon fails and Nikon fails to deliver it's hello Sony, and when Sony fails and Sony fails to deliver, it's hello Olympus, etc etc etc

[tcwilson]

I certainly would NOT let Ricoh/Pentax get away with this !

I'm not sure whether this would help but I would (if I were in your boots --- and I did have similar issues in the past with a K5) continue bombarding them with repeated emails/telephone calls/ etc, on a regular basis - weekly would be a good sequence - until they start responding in a more positive manner.
Have you sent them those "gif" images? If not, do so to show them that they have to abide by their own rules (their own proofs that their cameras ARE weather resistant as shown in the pictures).
This to me is false advertising, even for ONE camera. As you said, who knows how many K3III's are out there with a similar problem but have not been reported because they simply haven't been water sprayed yet?

So, my opinion, keep on harassing them directly AND with the Pentax/Ricoh rep.!!

Best of luck.

Hi. Thank you for your advice. Yes, I did send them those images, right after the first phone call with the rep.

---------- Post added 09-28-21 at 01:19 AM ----------

Hi. Thank you for your advice. Yes, I did send them those images, right after the first phone call with the rep.

---------- Post added 09-28-21 at 01:20 AM ----------

You know from where the water entered?

No. I suspect it was from the top of the body. So the seals around all the dials may be to blame. But I have no proof of that.

---------- Post added 09-28-21 at 01:26 AM ----------

Sorry to hear of your upsetting situation. It's never a good thing when a camera fails, especially for someone who has had years of good experience with a brand.

Pentax gear has a reputation for being rugged. There are lots of anecdotes of Pentax users who have continued to shoot in inclement weather while users of other brands have run to take cover. Regrettably, there also have been accounts of Pentax cameras that have failed owing to water damage in a variety of conditions.

@tcwilson, I think it would be informative if you could describe here the conditions under which your camera got wet. Was it drenched, or lightly damp? Did it sit in a pool of water? Was it used in an extended heavy downpour? For how long was it exposed to water? Did it die immediately, or after a certain period?

The lens is a key element in a weather-resistant system. I wonder whether the seals of your DA 18-135 have worn over time, or the mount seal was compromised by a foreign particle or grime. Did you get any sense from Ricoh Imaging how the moisture entered the camera?

While I'm not defending Ricoh Imaging, is it possible that their marketing implications for moisture-resistance apply to a limited warranty period for a lens? In other words, mounting a well-used lens on a relatively new camera may not necessarily meet the implied performance.

- Craig

Hi Craig. I had been in the kayak for less than 30 minutes when the camera failed. I would describe the water as similar to what you might encounter in a light or moderate rain. Everytime I took the camera out of the bag I did what I could to remove any water on the body and lens. If this had been a case where the camera had been all but submerged or allowed to sit in a pool of water - well then - it would just have been my carelessness to blame.

---------- Post added 09-28-21 at 01:32 AM ----------

Hi. The water was from what traveled down the paddle. I would describe the amount of water at its worst to a light to moderate rain. Once I hit the shutter and the camera did nothing, I removed as much water as I could, made sure there was no residual water in the bag, put the camera inside and sealed it. PCR told me on the phone the corrosion hit the main processor, and that based on its experience, even if it replaced that, it signified enough damage that other components would also probably fail if they had not already.

[clackers]

Very sad, tcwilson!

But *none* of the camera manufacturers will warranty against water or dirt. They're not waterproof, they're weather resistant. That's what 'WR' stands for in Pentax nomenclature.

Actual waterproof products have an IP rating, and almost no camera you can buy has one.

Even the little Olympus 'waterproof' cheap compact I had said seals must be checked, maintained and periodically changed professionally. I do kayaking, and my cameras stay in drybags or Pelican-style cases that have gaskets.

[slartibartfast01]

Hi. The water was from what traveled down the paddle. I would describe the amount of water at its worst to a light to moderate rain.

If the water traveled down the paddle does that mean that the camera wasn't in the bag while you were paddling? It still isn't clear to me at least.

[volley]

... I've treated weather-sealing as a mere additional layer of protection, while always trying to keep water and dust exposure of my gear as little as possible...

That's a fair summary and good advice!

[DonV]

I see now, you were paddling with the camera exposed and allowed water to drip/run off the paddle and onto the camera; then placed a wet camera in the waterproof bag- and dried it off somewhat between exposures.

If this is the scenario, it surely appears to me that you caused the problem and have no basis for a claim. JMHO.

[speagles2]

That's a real bummer, and I do sympathise with tcwilson.

The fact is, Pentax do market these cameras as highly weather sealed and resistant to splashing water, from marketing photos like the ones posted to videos online of Pentax ambassadors rinsing their gear under the tap. I shoot winter soccer games and have always felt confident to stay out and keep taking photos in light rain, based on Pentax's advertising and reputation for excellent weather sealing. I've done this on many occasions with the K-30, K-3 and now the K-3 iii, and never worried about rain on the camera body, other than to make sure I dry it off with a towel after the game. It's one of the things that makes me feel proud to be using Pentax gear. I'd also be pretty devastated if my new K-3 iii failed due to water ingress in these kinds of conditions and I was told that it was irreparable and I had no recourse - it's a very expensive piece of kit.

[StiffLegged]

If you want a waterproof camera, perhaps a Nikonos would be suitable. I understand WR means weather resistant, not water resistant, and the more details you give us, the weaker your complaint seems to be, IMO. It’s a real bummer, but it’s also a 2,000 dollar camera and a very expensive caution to us all. At least you didn’t go paddling with a 4,000 dollar medium format camera, like someone else I saw lately.

[Brabian]

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.”

I have to admit I've only scanned your post but I can say I experienced exactly the same response from Pentax with my K3 II a few years back! Having climbed a mountain in pouring rain in Uganda to find the mountain gorillas with my camera in my backpack, when we arrived, I took it out to photograph the troupe only to find my camera "dead"! Fortunately, my moto g phone, which had been in my soggy pocket, worked and so I was able to record the moment!
When I eventually got home, I contacted Pentax (UK) to complain that their, so-called, weather-proof camera had not lived up to its billing and "too bad" was their response, "it got wet"!
I was not happy but they refused to do anything except offer to charge me almost the full cost of the replacement to "repair" it, which I refused to pay. The returned camera does, actually, work, so I'm no worse off and I still went ahead and purchased a K70 as a back-up! This is because I have been a Pentaxian for more years that I care to remember and my lens stock prevents me from changing, now!
However, I. like you, now keep my camera in a "water-proof" bag, just in case but agree with you that Pentax/Ricoh totally fail to support their customers.

[FerranGMPentax]

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.”

It seems to lie that a company with the tradition of Pentax respond in this way. I hope Ricoh doesn’t want to get rid of Pentax.
In any case try to "bomb" with claims.
You can also have other K3 III tested from the same batch to see if there has been a production failure.

I have a K50, because when I looked to buy one, the saleswoman assured me that she had taken pictures with a K3 just below the Iguazu Falls and that she had zero problems. When I bought it I said I would try it out "in a massive way". A day of great storm I went out into the street and I was taking pictures for 10 minutes. All perfect (ah! the target was 18-55 f3.5-5.6 DA AL WR).
Luck.

[BigMackCam]

their so-called, weather-proof camera had not lived up to its billing

That's the thing... it's not a weather-proof camera and was never claimed to be such. It's weather-resistant - and only when used with a WR or AW lens, and all user-accessible seals / gaskets are kept clean. The problem is, Ricoh makes a big deal of the weather-resistance and some of their marketing implies it's almost normal use to get the camera soaking wet... but they never actually say that. All that weather-resistance gives you is a smaller chance that the camera will suffer water damage. There's still a chance that it will

[Wheatfield]

Time for Ricoh to crap or get off the pot. This is your top of the line dslr, repair it. But make sure that the customer knows this is a one off deal as water damage is not covered. No second chance here as any water damage is on the owner now….I never take any of my cameras on a canoe [kayak-whatever] without a camera bag [housing]. My 1 K3-II has been down to 95 feet and it still works fine [I really miss my Nikonos 5]. If my K3-III ever needs warranty repair and Ricoh rejects it, hello Cannon…I will sell everything…

My buddy with the AMG Mercedes should have tried that when he bumped it into a bollard in a parking lot. I'm certain the dealer would have just fixed it for him as a one off repair, no need to talk to the insurance company. After all, when you spend that much for a car, the rules should no longer apply.

There is no such thing as a one off in this type of situation. As soon as the company extends warranty to something that is not covered by warranty, they have defacto rewritten their warranty for anyone who, in this instance, drowns a camera.
This isn't about what Ricoh is doing. They have put a warranty on the product that covers some things, and doesn't cover other things, and they have put that warranty in writing. The customer has the choice of agreeing with it or going somewhere else.
This is about consumers taking responsibility for what they have done.
I see this sort of situation on a near daily basis, with customers bringing back equipment that they have wrecked and wanting their money back because the tool stopped working. People won't take responsibility for their actions if they can possibly help it. The default mechanism is to try to slough off their responsibility on anyone else.
As a society, we are regressing back to babyhood.

[Fitzcarraldo]

Enthusiasm for the K3 iii was already melting away because of the buffer limits. This story suggests another constraint for outdoor/wildlife photographers. I'm going to wait and see how this plays out, while building up my OM-D kit.