[zsimon]

It looks good.

[Serkevan]

They had a White Paper posted for us on the weather-beating qualities of cameras and lenses. A White Paper is a bit stronger than a loose-with-words advertisement. Their own website, unambiguous about the abilities of their equipment, is a little closer to home than a magazine spread or any random YouTube guy.

I just wanted to know how I got all these ideas about Pentax' great weather-beating abilities, when you all in this thread had educated us otherwise. And I see I got my ideas directly from Pentax itself. I'm betting the "sand and water" video guy got his ideas from Pentax itself as well. What's his user name here, btw? Does he still post?

Interesting.

Yeah, but literally the only thing that matters is the warranty, otherwise the implication is always "it should hold, but it might still fail, so it's up to you to risk it". But then again I'm from a technical/scientific background and properly paranoid about these things, so I immediately dismiss any claim that does not have solid backing as, quite honestly, worthless market-speak. I understand that not everyone is as skeptical as I am.

I'd argue that it's the right move to tone down the claims, even if the camera can withstand the elements. It is just not guaranteed that it will always do so, otherwise you'd have a warranty for that.

And, again, there is not a snowflake's chance in hell that any company dealing in electronics with removable parts will ever cover water damage, because it's laughably open to abuse.

[speagles2]

Clackers, with respect - and I do respect you as you're clearly an excellent photographer and a great contributor to these forums - I think you're wrong. At least in Australia, advertising isn't allowed be 'aspirational' it has to actually be true. As a consumer, if I buy a watch that is advertised as 'waterproof to 10m' I don't use it 'at my own risk' if I wear it in the swimming pool, even if the small print on the warranty card in the box makes it clear that the watch isn't actually waterproof at all. I am entitled to rely on the claims made by the seller in their advertisement. If Pentax tells me clearly in their advertisement that I can use my K-30 in the rain, and that turns out not to be true, that's their fault for false advertising, not my fault as a consumer for falling for it.

In Australia, the ACCC says: "It makes no difference whether the business intended to mislead you or not. If the overall impression left by a business's advertisement, promotion, quotation, statement or other representation creates a misleading impression in your mind—such as to the price, value or the quality of any goods and services—then the behaviour is likely to breach the law."

[Serkevan]

Clackers, with respect - and I do respect you as you're clearly an excellent photographer and a great contributor to these forums - I think you're wrong. At least in Australia, advertising isn't allowed be 'aspirational' it has to actually be true. As a consumer, if I buy a watch that is advertised as 'waterproof to 10m' I don't use it 'at my own risk' if I wear it in the swimming pool, even if the small print on the warranty card in the box makes it clear that the watch isn't actually waterproof at all. I am entitled to rely on the claims made by the seller in their advertisement. If Pentax tells me clearly in their advertisement that I can use my K-30 in the rain, and that turns out not to be true, that's their fault for false advertising, not my fault as a consumer for falling for it.

In Australia, the ACCC says: "It makes no difference whether the business intended to mislead you or not. If the overall impression left by a business's advertisement, promotion, quotation, statement or other representation creates a misleading impression in your mind—such as to the price, value or the quality of any goods and services—then the behaviour is likely to breach the law."

Can you prove, unequivocally, that the camera was damaged by faulty weather sealing and it wasn't because you had not, at the time, properly seated the seals, or because you used the camera in a way that isn't endorsed by the user's manual?

I agree with you in principle that the onus should be on the manufacturer, but the specific case of water damage is always going to be iffy because it's probably the one type of failure (along with drops) where there are a myriad ways the user can actually be the one at fault.

[yucatanPentax]

I think Pentax would have an issue in the USA as well.
Notably, they are not making nearly as strong claims for the K3iii as they did for the K30 that I documented. (I was simply interested in my own camera. Maybe if I find time, I'll check what they said for other cameras that I own.)

The FTC Act prohibits unfair or deceptive advertising in any medium. That is, advertising must tell the truth and not mislead consumers. A claim can be misleading if relevant information is left out or if the claim implies something that's not true.

When consumers see or hear an advertisement, whether it's on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, federal law says that ad must be truthful, not misleading, and, when appropriate, backed by scientific evidence.

Pentax told me that I can take my K30 into the rain whenever I want. I never need to worry about the weather. Under the law in the USA, that should be true. Pentax made these statements of their own free will.

Fully weather sealed body

When you're shooting with the PENTAX K-30, there's no need to come in out of the rain. Or the snow, for that matter. The only camera in its class with a fully weather sealed body, the K-30 is water resistant, dustproof and coldproof. Sealed with PENTAX precision, it's a completely climate proof digital SLR for any environment.

Just saying there are different ways to see this. Anyway, my main point was to determine how I ever got any idea that Pentax could withstand the rain, and now I've answered my own question: Pentax repeatedly said so, which under the law, must be true.

[speagles2]

Yeah, but literally the only thing that matters is the warranty,

I can only speak from an Australian perspective, but here, at least, that's not true. The advertising matters. Australian consumers are protected by laws that relate directly to the advertising, irrespective of the warranty.

[Serkevan]

I can only speak from an Australian perspective, but here, at least, that's not true. The advertising matters. Australian consumers are protected by laws that relate directly to the advertising, irrespective of the warranty.

Same as in Europe - I wouldn't be surprised if the toning down of the language used was caused by lawyers going "hey, guys, just so you know, we cannot cover this type of damage so please bring it down a notch and pass it by us next time".


Like I said, I absolutely agree that strongly suggesting actual proofing is unethical, but water damage is always going to be a "our word against yours" situation and I do not believe even a strongly consumer-supporting legislation would rule that the customer is entitled to a replacement - if only because of the inevitable practical implications.

[speagles2]

Can you prove, unequivocally, that the camera was damaged by faulty weather sealing and it wasn't because you had not, at the time, properly seated the seals, or because you used the camera in a way that isn't endorsed by the user's manual?

I agree with you in principle that the onus should be on the manufacturer, but the specific case of water damage is always going to be iffy because it's probably the one type of failure (along with drops) where there are a myriad ways the user can actually be the one at fault.

I don't disagree - if I return a camera with water ingress claiming that all I did was took it out in the rain, then I might well have actually dropped it in the ocean, and it's always going to be hard to prove one way or another. And I know we've gone a bit off-topic here as the OP was using their camera in a canoe and no-one posting here other than them actually knows what the circumstances were or whether the camera actually got much wetter than the kind of rain exposure shown in the Pentax ads. But I guess I'm a bit disappointed as this whole thread has left me a little nervous about taking the K3-iii out in the rain, which I've never felt before with my other Pentax gear.

But then maybe this is just one case, and we shouldn't get too hung up on it - I'd still like to think, perhaps naively, that if I really did nothing wrong and my camera failed just in a rain shower then Pentax would stand by it.

[BigMackCam]

As a consumer, if I buy a watch that is advertised as 'waterproof to 10m' I don't use it 'at my own risk' if I wear it in the swimming pool

That's an interesting analogy. As with our cameras and lenses, water resistance in watches is very often misunderstood by consumers, and might lead to arguments that manufacturers' ratings constitute misleading advertising.

Watches are generally advertised as water-resistant rather than water-proof (much like our cameras) because there are numerous factors that can result in water ingress. Furthermore, a watch rated for 30m water resistance shouldn't be used for swimming... it's considered resistant to accidental splashes only. You need one with at least a 50m water resistance rating (ideally, 100m plus) for swimming. Why? The rating is based on testing in a pressurised tank where the watch is completely static. When you're swimming, though, movement through the water exerts much greater pressure on the seals. Hold a 30m water-resistant watch at 1m below the surface of pool without moving it, and it might just stay dry inside (for a while, at least). Start swimming with it, and it'll let in water sooner or later.

Watches with 100m or less water resistance tend not to have screw-down crowns, and regardless of rating this is a risky choice if swimming regularly. Most people, though, don't wear their watches while swimming - just as most photographers don't use their cameras in pouring rain. Personally, I'd only swim and snorkel in a 200m (or greater) water-resistant watch with screw-down crown... but even a 200m or 300m water-resistant watch can let in water if the gaskets aren't seated just right, there's dirt or debris inside the screw-down crown, the crown or back isn't screwed down fully, the watch is worn in a hot jacuzzi, bath, shower or steam room, etc. etc. Seiko's guidance on water-resistance states:

Please check the marking on the back of your watch case and refer to the following table to confirm
the degree of water resistance of your Seiko watch and the preferable conditions of use.
A watch’s water resistance is not permanently guaranteed. It is affected by the ageing of gaskets or deformation of watch parts due to accidental shock. To preserve a watch’s water resistance as long as possible, please follow the precautions below:

Wipe off moisture, sweat or dirt with a soft dry cloth after removing it from the wrist in order to increase the durability of the case back, gaskets and band.
After using a water resistant watch in ocean water, wash it in fresh water and dry it with a soft cloth.
Do not wash a water resistant watch while the crown is pulled out.
Do not operate the crown or press a button when the watch is wet.
A periodic overhaul service is recommended to check the water resistance of the watch regularly to ensure it’s functionality.

Even though Seiko's warranty technically covers water damage for water-resistant watches, the highlighted areas above show there are numerous reasons ("get out clauses") why they might claim you were responsible for your lovely new watch suffering water ingress, rather than assuming or accepting it was a manufacturing fault.

So... do watch manufacturers' water resistance ratings constitute misleading advertising?

[Serkevan]

I don't disagree - if I return a camera with water ingress claiming that all I did was took it out in the rain, then I might well have actually dropped it in the ocean, and it's always going to be hard to prove one way or another. And I know we've gone a bit off-topic here as the OP was using their camera in a canoe and no-one posting here other than them actually knows what the circumstances were or whether the camera actually got much wetter than the kind of rain exposure shown in the Pentax ads. But I guess I'm a bit disappointed as this whole thread has left me a little nervous about taking the K3-iii out in the rain, which I've never felt before with my other Pentax gear.

But then maybe this is just one case, and we shouldn't get too hung up on it - I'd still like to think, perhaps naively, that if I really did nothing wrong and my camera failed just in a rain shower then Pentax would stand by it.

If it makes you feel any better, my K-7 and K-1 have made it out of a good handful of sudden rainy days without any trouble so far . That said, I usually don't actively use the camera in anything worse than a drizzle* - although that's more to do with me being incapable of seeing anything through fogged glasses and a drop-covered finder

*I usually treat the WR of my Pentax gear as the extra "it can survive while I wait the rain out" layer rather than "I can just keep going lol".

[c.a.m]

Very interestingly, no such claims are made today on the K-3iii. They will go as far as "weather-resistant," but not "sealed" or "proof" or any of the other language "never take a rain check" that they used in the past.My main point, I guess, as I was checking for myself how my ideas ever got into my head after reading your various comments and those of others, was that... "Huh, Pentax did tell us these things."

@yucatanPentax, thanks for your comments and references. Over the years, I've wondered just how resistant my Pentax gear is to weather and water. Like you, at one time I had formed an impression that I could use it in light rain without concern. However, as I read anecdotes of moisture-related failures, I figured that I should be more careful in the rain.

Consistent with your impression of earlier marketing claims, here's a thread from 2014 that was prompted by a then-new Pentax DSLR Product Guide that was sponsored by Ricoh Imaging UK. New Pentax (UK) Product Guide - Weather resistant or Weatherproof? - PentaxForums.com

(In the first post at that thread, the link to the Guide no longer works.) Notably, the K-5 II was described as a "camera that can cope with a quick dunk below the surface and a very heavy rain shower."

I agree with your observation that the current marketing is not nearly as assertively promising wrt moisture- and weather-resistance.

- Craig

[ZombieArmy]

I guess luck was with me that day.

I don't think it was luck. I think this case if it were truly splashes and not submersion then it was a manufacturing defect. There have been people here who use Pentax gear in rainforests, in extremely snowy mountains, etc for hundreds of thousands of shots without failure. The problem is even if it was a normal weather event that took out a camera Ricoh would probably not cover you.

[BigMackCam]

I don't think it was luck. I think this case if it were truly splashes and not submersion then it was a manufacturing defect. There have been people here who use Pentax gear in rainforests, in extremely snowy mountains, etc for hundreds of thousands of shots without failure. The problem is even if it was a normal weather event that took out a camera Ricoh would probably not cover you.

... and just to repeat what's been discussed previously, it's not just Ricoh... None of the camera manufacturers (to the best of my knowledge) cover water damage.

[Serkevan]

... and just to repeat what's been discussed previously, it's not just Ricoh... None of the camera manufacturers (to the best of my knowledge) cover water damage.

Not even GoPro (and their cameras are actually made to be usable underwater, which makes weatherproofing sound pedestrian at best) covers water damage.

[ThorSanchez]

Not even GoPro (and their cameras are actually made to be usable underwater, which makes weatherproofing sound pedestrian at best) covers water damage.

We just need to make peace with the idea that all advertising is to some degree a lie.