[clackers]

I think Ricoh and other manufacturers are being disingenuous to advertise cameras getting wet, or even very wet, but with a disclaimer to never, ever do this to your camera if you value its continued operation.

I suppose this isn't terribly different than car companies running an ad with their generic commuter SUV jumping an open drawbridge like the Dukes of Hazzard, but at the bottom of the screen in 2-point type is the following disclaimer: "Don't ever do this. Ever. We closed off half the city and hired a professional stuntman to do this, and it would get you killed in five seconds if you tried. And if it didn't kill you, you'd get arrested and we'd deny ever putting this thought in your head. But we really, really, really want you to buy this car on the basis of you thinking that if only you were Colin McRae and you had to flee from cops/terrorists/your ex-wife in this generic, 175 hp, 4600 lb SUV it would do a pretty good imitation of a rally car."

Exactly. It's advertising. How old are we all, exactly?

Who's naive enough to believe the conventions of advertising? I'm under no illusion that if I use Lynx body spray and go to a bar, that I'll go home with a pair of 19 year old blonde twins. Or that if I buy a Hasselblad my pictures are going to turn out like Annie Liebowitz's.

Warranties and specifications are there for a reason. They spell out the manufacturer's actual obligations.

Anyone subjecting their electronic device they've paid for out of their own pocket to water is 'playing chicken', IMHO.

[BigMackCam]

Who's naive enough to believe the conventions of advertising? I'm under no illusion that if I use Lynx body spray and go to a bar, that I'll go home with a pair of 19 year old blonde twins.

For anyone who might be under that illusion, let me just say that I did extensive tests on this some years ago, and @clackers is right. It doesn't work.

Damn those marketing execs!

[clackers]

For anyone who might be under that illusion, let me just say that I did extensive tests on this some years ago, and @clackers is right. It doesn't work.

Damn those marketing execs!

Lynx Africa - for those who want to smell like a 15 year old virgin!

[luftfluss]

(In the USA) one can sue for deceptive advertising, and quite possibly win, but the monetary cost would be prohibitive for most folks.

IOW, it is against the law (Federal Trade Commission Act) for a manufacturer to advertise capabilities but not guarantee them to a certain degree, unless the advertising is clearly discernible to a "reasonable" person as fantasy.

Legal action against RIcoh would be futile, I think, because Ricoh doesn't give two figs about the USA market.

[BigMackCam]

(In the USA) one can sue for deceptive advertising, and quite possibly win, but the monetary cost would be prohibitive for most folks.

IOW, it is against the law (Federal Trade Commission Act) for a manufacturer to advertise capabilities but not guarantee them to a certain degree, unless the advertising is clearly discernible to a "reasonable" person as fantasy.

In fairness to Ricoh, they've been pretty consistent in saying Pentax WR cameras are dust-proof but weather-resistant. They've never claimed them to be weather- or water-proof, and whilst some of the advertising may lead to a few folks thinking so, it's perhaps not been so blatant as I'd originally thought... I'm having a hard time finding much in the way of misleading advertising that's directly and conclusively attributable to Ricoh, so my position on this is softening somewhat.

Those of us who own a Pentax WR camera that suffers water damage can take some (admittedly rather cold) comfort in knowing that damage would almost certainly have occurred quicker and to a greater extent if the weather-resistant gaskets weren't there. They resisted the ingress of water, as they're supposed to, but they're no guarantee against water damage (and none was ever offered)...

[c.a.m]

I'm having a hard time finding much in the way of misleading advertising that's directly and conclusively attributable to Ricoh, so my position on this is softening somewhat.

I'm sort of thinking the same thing, although Ricoh Imaging does go further to promote weather resistance.

Ricoh Imaging states that the K-3 Mark III is designed "to prevent the intrusion of dust and water" and it is "totally resistant to demanding environmental factors."

In general, they also promote that "PENTAX's SLR cameras are resistant to the adverse conditions of outdoor photography and can be used even under severe environmental conditions" and that the WR lenses "have been sealed for preventing the entry of water and dust."

While the language suggests a degree of weather resistance in unspecified environmental conditions, the claims are not quantitative. Nonetheless, "totally resistant" is a strong claim, albeit open to interpretation. It's not clear cut.

Apart from the claim of weather resistance, let's pretend that an owner of a Pentax K-3 Mark III had never seen any of the 'marketing' points found on RIcoh Imaging's websites. Then, they would have only the Operating Manual for guidance on using the camera in adverse conditions. The manual states clearly: "avoid contact with...dust, water... . These could cause the camera to breakdown (sic). Wipe the camera to dry off any rain or water drops." and, in the specifications, "Operating Environment. Humidity: 85% or less (no condensation)". Perhaps the manual should be the definitive reference point for users.


- Craig

[DonV]

"Resistant" or "totally resistant" are meaningless words without a scientific definition; each means whatever the reader "thinks" it means. Such words are advertising "speak" and highly likely chosen and written by
folks with no idea of that they mean or imply in respect to camera use.

The specification of the "Operating Environment" above is a definitive reference point as c.a.m. points out. Less than 85% humidity would rule out many days, certainly use in rain or fog, or if "splashed".

[BigMackCam]

Ricoh Imaging states that the K-3 Mark III is designed "to prevent the intrusion of dust and water" and it is "totally resistant to demanding environmental factors."

Hmmm. That is rather bold... "designed to guard against the intrusion of dust and water" and "highly resistant to demanding environmental factors" might have been a wiser choice of words, given the warranty...

[subsea]

Back in 2018, at the PhotoPlus Expo in NYC, Ricoh had a K-1 on display under running water (see the photo I took, below). Water resistance was obviously considered a significant feature. That being said, they did not demonstrate that the camera actually worked after being under the running water (at least not while I was there!). Attendees at PhotoPlus were allowed to handle the camera and take shots with it, so I imagine it worked or they would have removed it from display. Also, the actual amount of water was relatively small (i.e. nowhere near what would be expected under a faucet, but possibly comparable to a continuous dousing in the rain or being splashed). I imagine that they had similar displays at other photography events.

[kwb]

I'm a water spout when it's warm, and I have hiked in 30ºC+ enough times to get well acquainted with sweaty grips .
Even the K-30 video shows a one time splash where water barely reaches the camera, and with very low velocity at that,

In the first video, the guy is in effect blasting the camera with high velocity water by swinging the camera into curtain of water mid-air at such a speed (15~16sec into the video). If that's very low velocity to you, and if you say that your sweaty grip is comparable or worse, maybe I'm underestimating the velocity of your sweat.

but I can see that one being a bit misleading.

Yes.

[ThorSanchez]

Back in 2018, at the PhotoPlus Expo in NYC, Ricoh had a K-1 on display under running water (see the photo I took, below). Water resistance was obviously considered a significant feature. That being said, they did not demonstrate that the camera actually worked after being under the running water (at least not while I was there!). Attendees at PhotoPlus were allowed to handle the camera and take shots with it, so I imagine it worked or they would have removed it from display. Also, the actual amount of water was relatively small (i.e. nowhere near what would be expected under a faucet, but possibly comparable to a continuous dousing in the rain or being splashed). I imagine that they had similar displays at other photography events.

If you pick up the rock and look underneath there's text on the bottom that says "This does not imply that the camera will work when you've exposed it to even the slightest amount of water. If you get your Pentax camera wet you're an idiot. We will steadfastly, vigorously deny any warranty claims if the camera has been exposed to even mildly humid air. C'mon, we're all adults here. We know that all advertising is somewhere in between gross exaggeration and a total lie. If we could clear an extra $4.75 in profits we'd claim the K-30 is guaranteed to hook you up with Kate Bekinsale."

[Serkevan]

In the first video, the guy is in effect blasting the camera with high velocity water by swinging the camera into curtain of water mid-air at such a speed (15~16sec into the video). If that's very low velocity to you, and if you say that your sweaty grip is comparable or worse, maybe I'm underestimating the velocity of your sweat.
Yes.

The water barely even touches the camera and when it does so it's close to the highest point of the arc... so its velocity is near zero

[Wheatfield]

Lynx Africa - for those who want to smell like a 15 year old virgin!

I put that stuff on one time recently. It made me feel like a twenty year old.
Sadly, the twenty year olds thought it was creepy.

---------- Post added Oct 5th, 2021 at 01:42 PM ----------

(In the USA) one can sue for deceptive advertising, and quite possibly win, but the monetary cost would be prohibitive for most folks.

IOW, it is against the law (Federal Trade Commission Act) for a manufacturer to advertise capabilities but not guarantee them to a certain degree, unless the advertising is clearly discernible to a "reasonable" person as fantasy.

Legal action against RIcoh would be futile, I think, because Ricoh doesn't give two figs about the USA market.

On this note, and back to the topic, has Ricoh actually shown the K3III being used in a rain storm, or in any other way being drenched in their advertising?

---------- Post added Oct 5th, 2021 at 01:49 PM ----------

Hmmm. That is rather bold... "designed to guard against the intrusion of dust and water" and "highly resistant to demanding environmental factors" might have been a wiser choice of words, given the warranty...

I dunno, I can be highly resistant to being run over by a truck, but that won't stop me from turning into road splat if I test my total resistance with a bus.

[PDL]

I put that stuff one time recently. It made me feel like a twenty year old.
Sadly, the twenty year olds thought it was creepy.

---------- Post added Oct 5th, 2021 at 01:42 PM ----------



On this note, and back to the topic, has Ricoh actually shown the K3III being used in a rain storm, or in any other way being drenched in their advertising?

---------- Post added Oct 5th, 2021 at 01:49 PM ----------



I dunno, I can be highly resistant to being run over by a truck, but that won't stop me from turning into road splat if I test my total resistance with a bus.

OK - enough of this. Here is the chart of what the IP numbers mean:
Please note:
An X means in any column means that there is NO rating.
The second digit is for liquids rating.
So, if the Olympus camera is IPX1 - that means that solids (i.e. dust-sands-rocks-boulders) are not rated. The 1 means protected against vertical dripping water when held upright.

An IPX1 rating is not all that good. Maybe this is why Ricoh/Pentax does not give a IP rating.

A device sitting in water is not covered until at least level 6 or higher. Putting your camera (weather sealed or not) in a internally wet water proof bag is bad. That said, I have had my K20D and my K-3II out in the rain in the PNW. The K20D (with a 16-50 * lens) was out in a Typhoon (yes that is what they are called on the West Coast - Hurricanes are in the Atlantic) with no issue. I have shot with my K-3II in Budapest (16-50 *) during a downpour and Scotland during the Highland Games (50-135 *) without issue. The caveat is, I did not change batteries, Lens, SD cards. No door was opened and the hot shoe cover was in place. In all those cases, when I got back inside, The camera(s) were not put back into my bag. The cameras and lens combination was set on a towel after being wiped down by said towel (I have a microfiber towel in my bag) and allowed to air dry before opening any door on the camera.

In the 50+ years I have been shooting, I have never had water get into one of my cameras. Weather Sealed or not. Just think about what you are doing.

[c.a.m]

Further to my previous post (#175), I don't know what to say now...

Here's a caution from the Operating Manual for the Ricoh WG-70, a waterproof camera rated at IPX8: "Avoid contact with garbage, mud, sand, dust, water, toxic gases, or salt. These could cause the camera to breakdown. Wipe the camera to dry off any rain or water drops." (my emphasis)

There are other guidance points and cautions in the manual for the WG-70 concerning underwater use, but this specific caution is identical to the one in the K-3 Mark III manual.

So, use the WG-70 underwater at depths to 14 m for 2 hours, but avoid contact with water. Okay.

I don't mean to start a discussion about Ricoh Imaging's waterproof compacts, but just to note the inconsistencies.

- Craig