[normhead]

If an ad shows a camera covered with water drops or being used in rain, it's a reasonable expectation that the warranty covers such usage.

Not if said warranty specifically excludes it.

[Fat Albert]

Not if said warranty specifically excludes it.

Showing a camera covered with raindrops and then washing your hands of the whole thing in the warranty is quite underhanded, in my humble opinion. At the very least, it's deceptively misleading, and I say this as a huge supporter of Ricoh/Pentax.

[normhead]

How would you demonstrate Pentax's superior water sealing?

Showing cars with hot babes draped all over them is also misleading, but yet it seems to be quite accepted. The water drops images demonstrate a feature. The fact that new cars come with pictures with tires on them, doesn't mean you'll never have a flat.

[monochrome]

Showing a camera covered with raindrops and then washing your hands of the whole thing in the warranty is quite underhanded, in my humble opinion. At the very least, it's deceptively misleading, and I say this as a huge supporter of Ricoh/Pentax.

Not if your testing shows water damage can only occur under conditions more extreme than demonstrated. What they're effectively saying is "If it is water damaged, by definition something outside normal use was done to the camera; therefore we don't warrant water damage".

The depth of entitlement of consumers astonishes me. We're more than happy to pay a stupid-low price for the camera, but heaven forfend we should accept a limited warranty in return.

It isn't a Hasselblad. Don't expect Hasselblad lifetime support at a Pentax price.

[ofer4]

This issue is something that has always annoyed me with Pentax. If they really claim to be weather resistant, they should put their money (warranty) where their mouth (advertising) is. If I was in the OP's shoes, I'd respond to the warranty denial with a copy of one of Pentax's water-splashed camera advertisements. A side-by-side of these two documents on their Facebook page might be particularly effective.

[normhead]

This issue is something that has always annoyed me with Pentax. If they really claim to be weather resistant, they should put their money (warranty) where their mouth (advertising) is. If I was in the OP's shoes, I'd respond to the warranty denial with a copy of one of Pentax's water-splashed camera advertisements. A side-by-side of these two documents on their Facebook page might be particularly effective.

And they would probably respond with an image of the camera showing an inadvertently damaged water seal.

[JohnX]

The fact that water damage is excluded from the warranty doesn't mean you can't claim against Ricoh for a repair. I believe the warranty forms part of the contract when you buy the product, and certainly here in the UK there's legislation that insists the contract must be fair (to both sides).

If you bought the camera on the understanding that it was WR, not least based on Ricoh's own advertising, then you may well have a case against them in law. Again, here in the UK we have access to a 'Small Claims Court', which we can access for a nominal amount. It's often the case that the other party will settle rather than have a Court find against them which creates a precedent.

In your case I would pursue Ricoh for a free repair, but as always seek a professional opinion.

[itshimitis]

The fact that water damage is excluded from the warranty doesn't mean you can't claim against Ricoh for a repair. I believe the warranty forms part of the contract when you buy the product, and certainly here in the UK there's legislation that insists the contract must be fair (to both sides).

If you bought the camera on the understanding that it was WR, not least based on Ricoh's own advertising, then you may well have a case against them in law. Again, here in the UK we have access to a 'Small Claims Court', which we can access for a nominal amount. It's often the case that the other party will settle rather than have a Court find against them which creates a precedent.

In your case I would pursue Ricoh for a free repair, but as always seek a professional opinion.

County courts that hear small claims don't set precedents though other judges may bear the judgement in that case in mind.

The awkward bit is the water resistant label. Pentax Ricoh advertise it as water resistant. That is not the same thing as waterproof. For the same reason, you should be careful with watches. Many of them state water resistant, but they are really just splash resistant.

[ofer4]

---------- Post added 10-21-16 at 09:46 AM ----------

And, direct from the Ricoh product page (see 1:13)...

Vimeo

[normhead]

---------- Post added 10-21-16 at 09:46 AM ----------

And, direct from the Ricoh product page (see 1:13)...

And probably all new cameras with intact water seals. Can you sue car companies for a flat tire , because they post ads of their cars with no flats. This whole issue comes down to was there a manufacturing defect in his camera. There are enough of us who have seriously stressed the water seal on our camera to establish that it's not a design flaw. So to me it's apparent, this was either a seal with a defect, or after the fact damage.I personally have left the corner of a seal open, in a manner that would have let water in had it been subject to splashing or immersion. I've done enough dumb to be skeptical.

But everyone is dodging the question.

How does Pentax let folks know that they have very good WR without opening themselves to the kinds of suits you folks advocate? What would be the correct course of prevention of these kinds of mostly frivolous law suits? Make no claims at all and pretend they don't have the best water resistance in the industry on their lower end models? Companies need to be able to advertise the strengths of their products without opening themselves to law suits, so what would you suggest?

[CarlJF]

The only way I can see this kind of complaint having a chance would be demonstrating that the damage was caused by a manufacturing defect.

And this is exactly the point many people miss: a warranty isn't an "all risk" protection. It only covers manufacturing defects, unless specified otherwise in the warranty description. And not only for Pentax, or cameras, but for all goods in general...

And even if there was a defect with a seal, the warranty would only be limited to the replacement of the defective seal, and will not the other damages resulting from the defect. Again, it's basically the same thing as with any other goods...

I believe that some photographer's associations membership includes specific insurance covering gear, at least for things like theft. Or you can also look for gear insurance (like insuremyequipment.com). But even then, you will still have a deductible to pay... For example, insuremyequipment.com cover water damage but you will have to pay a 500$US deductible, in addition to the minimum 455$US annual fee... Looking at this, for me, the 542$CAN (about 400$US) Sun is asking you to get your 645Z back in shape looks very reasonable...

That said, I totally understand that it s*&% when someone buy a high end weather sealed camera only to find out that warranty coverage is quite limited if there's a problem with the weather sealing. But we have to know that warranty coverage isn't the same as an all risk insurance, and that WR only means that the gear has a better probability of sustaining bad weather condition than a non WR one. This doesn't mean it's 100% failproof...

[BrianR]

How does Pentax let folks know that they have very good WR without opening themselves to the kinds of suits you folks advocate? What would be the correct course of prevention of these kinds of mostly frivolous law suits? Make no claims at all and pretend they don't have the best water resistance in the industry on their lower end models? Companies need to be able to advertise the strengths of their products without opening themselves to law suits, so what would you suggest?

Easy! Get a couple dozen k70's, and a couple dozen comparably priced models from each of the other manufacturers. Rig them all to take a shot every second. Bring on the artificial rain. Have someone walk out and remove the cameras as they fail, probably a smiling lady in heels and a bikini. Oh, throw in a smiling dude in heels and a speedo while we're at it. If Pentax WR is clearly the best in this segment (at least vs artificial rain) it should be apparent. Some of the k-70s are bound to fail after enough time, so you could simultaneously show Pentax WR is tops and also not infallible (imagine that kind of honesty out of any manufacturer). Also, a bunch of cameras would get wrecked, so that's fun too. Did I mention make sure you're videoing the whole test from the start? We don't want to have to do a retake.

[csa]

The ads do lead us to believe that the cameras are waterproof, rather than water resistant. However, it's still up to the owners to take reasonable steps to protect our investments. If I'm shooting in a light rain with a zoom lens, I leave the lens extended until I am out of the rain, so I can completely wipe down the lens, especially the extended part of the barrel; as I think moisture can be sucked in when retracted. I also usually carry a plastic bag or a rain cover, just in case.

[JohnX]

If Ricoh say 'fully weather sealed' I think it's reasonable to expect the product not to fail if some rain falls on it. Immerse it in a bucket of water; different entirely.

So, if 'you' buy a camera that is described as 'fully weather sealed' a Court would probably recognise that taking it out in the rain is reasonable and within it's use parameters.

When I mentioned 'precedent' in an earlier post I should have clarified that I was not suggesting one that would be automatically recognised by other Courts, but rather that the claim was valid which could open the doors to many others fitting the same circumstances.

I firmly believe that we Pentaxians should not let Ricoh off the hook. If we break our kit that's not Ricohs fault, but if we use it as expected/advertised, etc, then it's Ricohs problem, not ours, and they should sort the problem at no cost to us, especially if the problem is well documented like water damaged fully weather sealed cameras, aperture block failures, SDM failures, etc. Fortunately I haven't suffered any of these problems with my kit, but I won't hesitate to be confrontational with Ricoh if anything does go wrong that is demonstrably a common design fault.

Be nice, be firm, but if no other recourse 'see you in Court'!

[Fat Albert]

If Ricoh wants the consumer to be aware that weather sealing should not be counted upon in the rain, DON'T SHOW WET CAMERAS IN YOUR ADS.

If you do, a small print disclaimer at the bottom of the page would be in order. Something along the lines of, "Artistic marketing depiction. Do not subject your camera to the conditions depicted herein." Of course, Ricoh will never do that, because Pentax weather sealing is marketed as being top-notch. They can't have it both ways, so which way should they go? They've painted themselves into a corner with this one.