[CarlJF]

Also guys, don't forget that "water damage" doesn't necessarily means "water coming from the rain". Water damage is also known to be caused by condensation inside the body. Which is something weather sealing can't do nothing against... The camera could be perfectly weather sealed and has condensation forming inside it.

In this case, neither Pentax or Sun said that the damage came from exposure to rain. They only said that they've found evidence of "liquid damage" inside the camera... Depending on the source and nature of this "liquid", WR should or not have prevented it. But there's no way to know for sure where this liquid came from... Again, under these circumstances, the offer to put a 8500$CAN camera back in shape for 542$CAN for a arguably out a warranty repair looks like a very fair deal to me even if free is always better...

[normhead]

All this because one guy's 645 failed. You guys are a hoot. By the way, since my last post, I was out taking pictures. You wanna see some? Do you wanna just sit here and bitch?

I don't know what is wrong with you guys. I know exactly what "water resistant" means. No clarification is necessary. It means, if case you haven't caught on, might be able to resist water, but maybe not." The cameras and lenses are exactly as claimed.

I'm guessing the Ricoh legal department will back me up and that.

[CarlJF]

Here's an interesting webpage from a local camera repair shop about condensation damage. It's in french, but just look at the pictures. They all show cameras that were damaged by condensation from people telling the shop their cameras were never used under rain or dropped in water. Usually, the damage is oxidation forming on circuits (the first two pictures), but he even saw cameras into which mold started growing (last picture)! All of these "water damages" were from condensation and couldn't have been prevented by weather sealing...

[JohnX]

We all have our opinions, and are entitled to express them. One more of mine is don't justify or make excuses for others, like Ricoh, they're perfectly capable of doing it for themselves.

Normhead The OP is rightly upset over his damaged camera and is looking for comments/advice. He's got both in this thread. Sorry he hasn't included any photos for critique, but I'm guessing it wasn't uppermost in his mind when he started the thread. Possibly be was looking for some support?

CarlJF.Condensation needs humidity, which can occur naturally in many countries, but also due to water ingress from leaks. It's necessary to identify the cause as well as the effect. Any good repairer should do both.

---

Last edited by JohnX; 10-23-2016 at 02:30 AM.

[BrunoL]

Thanks everyone for your explanations, opinions, and suggestions. Beyond my own personal ordeal, I'm glad to have sparked this discussion if it can help someone else realize that "weather resistant" doesn't mean "weather proofed." For some it might have been obvious, while for others it's a bit misleading considering that Pentax are fond of showing lots of water hitting their cameras in the ads, though they won't cover water damage as stated online.

I'm disappointed in Pentax for a number of reasons (lack of pro support, misleading lens road map (nothing new for us digital 645 users...), etc., etc.), but I do love the Z so I will patiently await its return and treat it like the fragile thing it is when it starts raining from now on. Lesson learned.

Cheers,
Bruno

[c.a.m]

The issue of Pentax weather-sealing, weather-proofing, and moisture damage seems to get re-visited frequently. Here's a thread that gives various perspectives.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/16-pentax-news-rumors/261716-new-pentax-u...therproof.html

Can you sue car companies for a flat tire , because they post ads of their cars with no flats.

On this point, I think the analogy is close. A similar comparison might be to a car manufacturer that shows a video or image of a car running over a bed of nails: puncture-proof or puncture-resistant?

- Craig

[monochrome]

On this point, I think the analogy is close. A similar comparison might be to a car tire manufacturer that shows a video or image of a car running over a bed of nails: puncture-proof or puncture-resistant?

- Craig

This ^^ is perhaps more apt, but the analogy is imperfect.

Perhaps a Gore-Tex rainsuit in a vicious storm, removed at the coat check to show a dashing man in his crisp tuxedo, meeting a beautiful woman in the lobby of the Opera House.

[BigMackCam]

Perhaps a Gore-Tex rainsuit in a vicious storm, removed at the coat check to show a dashing man in his crisp tuxedo, meeting a beautiful woman in the lobby of the Opera House.

When is the next Bond movie due?

[monochrome]

When is the next Bond movie due?

Hah. That's the image I had in mind!

[Venom3300]

Also the camera is not said to be water proof, just resistant.

[c.a.m]

Also the camera is not said to be water proof, just resistant.

In fact, the following is the description at the Ricoh-Imaging.co.jp site:

Feature 3? PENTAX 645Z | RICOH IMAGING
Airtight body that keeps out rain and dust
Dustproof, weather-resistant construction

Anticipating poor conditions encountered in outdoor shooting, this camera features a dust and splash resistant construction. 76 different places including buttons, dials, and covers are carefully sealed to keep out raindrops, humidity, and dust. The same construction is also used on AW lenses. When combined with an AW lens, this camera can shoot even in severe conditions such as. waterfall and dust.
-----

And a description from the Ricoh Imaging USA site:

Fully weather & coldproof design
A magnesium alloy body, die cast aluminum chassis, and 76 special seals make the 645Z fully weather and coldproof. Resist water, fog, snow, sand and dust, for top performance in extreme field conditions, or studio.
--------




Our discussion here may not offer much help to @BrunoL's predicament, but it serves to underscore the ambiguity of Ricoh's marketing pitches.

- Craig

[Gyroscope]

I think this boils down to Pentax not wanting to open themselves up warranty claims from someone who may have submerged a camera by mistake. How can you prove the damage came from a light rain as compared to being dunked? This is the sort of situation you need camera insurance for. IMO if you own a camera and lens combo worth as much as a small car you should insure it like you would a car.

[Sqideyes]

Resistance doesn't mean exclusion.

[rfkiii]

I was shooting at the Grand Canyon this past August (monsoon season) when it began to drizzle lightly. I took my coat off and covered my camera & lens while I got wet. Both of my cameras are long out of warranty but I do not trust that any camera is truly 100% drizzle-proof much less waterproof for sustained exposures. Of course, the GC was still there when it stopped drizzling.

[wed7]

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.

This. Although I've tested my K-30 in both sea and freshwater.