Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-12-2016, 05:30 PM   #46
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,714
QuoteOriginally posted by victormeldrew Quote
then they are not warranting the seals against manufacturing faults ...They should at least test that the seals are all in place and working before failing to honour the warranty.
Save

Good luck to you, Victor, but I reckon their lawyer would destroy you or the Consumer Authority's lawyer if they decided to pick up your case.


Seals are almost always fine when they come out of the factory.


But I remember the waterproof watches of the 70s, where you were foolish to dive into a swimming pool after a few years, because of course, all rubber components become brittle and change in size and flexibility over time.


Gaskets should always be checked that there isn't some grit blocking them, they've been correctly closed, and a maintenance regime might involve Vaseline or similar applied to surfaces.


If you buy one of those very high-end cases for your D4 to take underwater portraits, the manuals will always tell you to not put the camera in until you've immersed the empty case and checked for leaks.


With just your phone or camera, you don't get a second chance!

07-12-2016, 05:46 PM   #47
Moderator
Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,211
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
I think you need to go into bat for the OP as his customer advocate and paralegal, Mark.
Your business card should of course read, "Jerling, Jerling and Jerling Pty Ltd - almost a law firm"!
The OP is not in my jurisdiction, Clackers. You will note that I said that I would have no problem here (being New Zealand) in gaining a win under the Consumer Guarantee Act.
Sadly, it seems many countries do not have robust consumer protection laws.

I have used my K-5 in the pouring rain many times. Always with either the stock 18-55mm weathersealed lens, or with the 70-300mm Sigma lens. At no time have I had any instances of water ingress into the camera or into either lens.
I don't think I'm unique in my expectation of fair use.
07-12-2016, 06:15 PM   #48
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,714
QuoteOriginally posted by MarkJerling Quote
I would have no problem here

It would be great to have a precedent, Mark - wherever it was - that could then be brought up in a case elsewhere in the world, but obviously, let's hope it doesn't happen to you!
07-12-2016, 06:38 PM   #49
Moderator
Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,211
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
It would be great to have a precedent, Mark - wherever it was - that could then be brought up in a case elsewhere in the world, but obviously, let's hope it doesn't happen to you!
Unfortunately, Clackers, a win under our Consumer Guarantees Act would not set any international precedent. It's not like it's the UNCITRAL Model Law.

07-12-2016, 06:54 PM   #50
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,714
QuoteOriginally posted by MarkJerling Quote
Unfortunately, Clackers, a win under our Consumer Guarantees Act would not set any international precedent. It's not like it's the UNCITRAL Model Law.

But you're not looking for jurisdiction, you'd just be back and forth over relevant examples to illustrate the phrase 'fair use'.

Hey, suddenly, I'm the optimist on this!
07-12-2016, 06:58 PM   #51
Moderator
Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,211
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
But you're not looking for jurisdiction, you'd just be back and forth over relevant examples to illustrate the phrase 'fair use'.

Hey, suddenly, I'm the optimist on this!
You can be as optimistic as you like - If local law does not offer the necessary consumer protections, you'll most likely be out of luck.
But what do I know? Maybe this is a job for Clackers, Clackers and Clackers Barristers and Solicitors.
07-12-2016, 09:19 PM   #52
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,714
QuoteOriginally posted by MarkJerling Quote
If local law does not offer the necessary consumer protections, you'll most likely be out of luck.
Australia is similar. There are arguable phrases like 'reasonable' that can be at odds with what a manufacturer spells out. Ricoh's standard warranty is 12 months but the seller I got my K-1 from indicated that they know 2 years will be expected. If someone really wanted to press the point, they could attempt to argue that for its price, a K-1 should be expected to work longer than a K-50.

The EU has excellent protections, too, but the distributors have to factor in all those extra claims so the buying prices are higher, too.

QuoteOriginally posted by MarkJerling Quote
But what do I know? Maybe this is a job for Clackers, Clackers and Clackers Barristers and Solicitors.
"Clogging our courts since 1976!"
07-12-2016, 09:39 PM - 1 Like   #53
Moderator
Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,211
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
"Clogging our courts since 1976!"
You Vexatious Litigant!

07-14-2016, 09:01 PM   #54
Senior Member
Greenneck's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 136
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by csa Quote
Looking at the photos of the 4 hour hike, I see the people all wearing rain gear. Just taking a simple plastic bag to cover the camera with, in adverse conditions would help immensely. WR may not apply to 4 hours in rain. "Weather resistant" does not mean waterproof. I'm assuming the camera was hanging straight down while hiking; this would expose the card door more so to moisture entering.

I also have insurance on all of my camera equipment, but do take care that hopefully I'll never need to use it.

I sincerely hope your camera does come back to life, and you can enjoy using it for many years to come!

Being washington anyone who goes hiking normaly wears rain gear... Anyone walking around normaly wears a rain coat.



Anyways UPDATE I got a call from the head of north america something I forget her title saying she authorized my camera replacement and said i was totally justified. That was friday morning I still have not heard back from them or got the shipping label she said she would send.

---------- Post added 07-14-16 at 09:04 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
I want to be on record as being very sympathetic to Greenneck's problem. That being said, I looked at the photos posted from his hike. In a few of the lakeside shots, it is raining quite hard...not a downpour, but not mist either.

Whether it is reasonable to expect seal failure under those conditions is debatable. Is Ricoh/Pentax advertising showing obviously wet cameras deceptive? Are online video reviews showing partial submersion rigged? It is hard to say on both counts. What is fairly certain is that an unsealed kit subjected to either condition would fail within seconds.

What about the warranty interpretation that equates failure of the environmental seal feature with abuse? That is where things get sticky. Is Ricoh/Pentax unique in not covering water damage to their sealed bodies? No...warranty exclusion for water intrusion is universal across brands regardless of whether the body has seals. Are the camera's seals built to any sort of industry standards? It depends. Those advertised as "waterproof" are. Those advertised as resistant are not. Will the warranty exclusion stand in court? I dunno...I suspect it depends on applicable consumer law and whether it can be shown that the seals routinely fail after reasonable exposure to the wet.

Should Ricoh/Pentax be routinely replacing water-compromised cameras where the exposure was incidental and not severe? That is a hard question. Is there a reasonable way for them to differentiate 1/2 hour in mist from 30 seconds immersion at two feet depth or a blast from a fire hydrant? Is there a way for them to spot a defective seal after the fact? After all, the possibility of defective seals is at the heart of the matter.


Steve

I think if they wanna play that game they need to stop saying hey look we are better than nikon and canon because we are weather sealed. If you go to that k1 website with the stories of the three photographers one of them details the extreams he puts his cameras through. Maybe if they dont want us to use them like that they shouldnt tell us its safe...


My 18-135 lens still works perfectly fine.
07-14-2016, 11:10 PM   #55
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,714
QuoteOriginally posted by Greenneck Quote
I think if they wanna play that game they need to stop saying hey look we are better than nikon and canon because we are weather sealed. If you go to that k1 website with the stories of the three photographers one of them details the extreams he puts his cameras through. Maybe if they dont want us to use them like that they shouldnt tell us its safe...
Great news, Greenneck!

The weather resistance is unusual for a consumer DSLR, but yes, you can hype it dangerously. Exaggeration in advertising is rampant - look at the Samsung Galaxy S7 ad where the photo was revealed to have been taken by a Canon DSLR.

If there was genuine confidence in their products, Canon, Pentax and Nikon would cover water and sand ingress in their warranties or get IPX certified.
07-14-2016, 11:13 PM   #56
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,216
QuoteOriginally posted by Greenneck Quote
Being washington anyone who goes hiking normaly wears rain gear... Anyone walking around normaly wears a rain coat.
I live in and was raised in Western Washington (the rainy part of the state...Seattle actually) and while Goretex is acceptable street wear pretty much year round, I only where mine if it is cold or I am getting wet. Ditto for ponchos and hoods up.

QuoteOriginally posted by Greenneck Quote
Anyways UPDATE I got a call from the head of north america something I forget her title saying she authorized my camera replacement and said i was totally justified. That was friday morning I still have not heard back from them or got the shipping label she said she would send.
This is incredibly cool. Good work Ricoh!


Steve
07-14-2016, 11:15 PM   #57
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,216
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Exaggeration in advertising is rampant - look at the Samsung Galaxy S7 ad where the photo was revealed to have been taken by a Canon DSLR.
Did you see the recent news where the S7 Active failed its waterproof claim when tested by Consumer Reports? Oops!


Steve
07-14-2016, 11:27 PM   #58
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 7,714
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Did you see the recent news where the S7 Active failed its waterproof claim when tested by Consumer Reports? Oops!


Steve
Thanks for pointing that out! I'm a little disappointed because I thought that next year when my current plan finishes, this'd be a candidate. It has an IP68 rating, too, so they committed to a standard in print.

Samsung Galaxy S7 Active not really Waterproof, says Consumer Reports - Fortune
08-05-2016, 08:42 AM - 3 Likes   #59
Senior Member
Greenneck's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 136
Original Poster
Final update: Received my brand new k3ii body today, standard packaging straight from overseas. I did have to call them a week or two ago after going a few weeks with out word or the return label. That lead to a couple day wait while they figured out who it was that told me I would be getting this camera and getting me the label. I am instantly back in love with my k3 I have missed it so much these last two months.
08-05-2016, 05:00 PM   #60
Site Supporter
Ex Finn.'s Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Southern Maryland.
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 6,061
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
the manuals will always tell you to not put the camera in until you've immersed the empty case and checked for leaks.
My Go-pro manual says the same thing! One grain of sand or a piece of lint or hair can most certainly compromise any seal.
I always avoid zooming while in rain!
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, cameras, exposure, failure, k3ii, light, pentax, pentax help, photography, power, rain, ricoh/pentax, seals, troubleshooting, warranty, water, weather
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A short story about the K5 weather sealing cxzj Pentax K-5 17 02-22-2017 07:06 PM
Torrential rainfall tested the limits of the weather sealing on my K-3 II bwDraco Pentax K-3 17 01-09-2016 12:39 PM
AF360FGZ II Flash batteries mAh value, weather sealing and use with K3 cake Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 6 05-24-2015 09:45 PM
K3 and Weather-sealing evansph Pentax K-3 9 05-24-2014 11:52 AM
Weather-sealing and Blizzard Conditions Bud Post Your Photos! 18 03-11-2008 08:19 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:11 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top