K20D Rain Damage

paulelescoces · 09-08-2010, 06:11 AM

On the idea of seals drying out, lens was purchased in January in Adorama so is only 8 months old, I could imagine this being more the case after many years. The service technician suggested that the seals looked ok so I am pretty confused at how water can enter..... although, from the oxidation it cetrainly looks to enter via the 2 electrical contacts (would also help explain why the camera was also shortly affected)

On studying the photos.. I would tend to think it does not look too bad, the entrance of the electrical contacts looks the area worst hit.. my limited knowledge would suggest that cleaning this up and cleaning the circuit boards would likely fix the issue (expecting that chip & motor are not fried)

Cambo · 09-08-2010, 08:37 AM

I always collect them when I'm staying at a hotel/motel. My travelling companions think I'm nuts (I'm a bald guy), but they sure are handy for protecting camera gear.

Cheers,
Cameron

Originally posted by JohnBee

I would put silica gel pack in the battery compartment too.

Keep in mind that seals can shrink or crack with and that nothing is garanteed when it comes to weather proofing. My K20's are over two years old and I wouldn't trust them in a downpour. Which is why I always carry a pack with a rain cover in it(just in case).

Here's to hoping for a graceful recovery!

**interested_observer** · 09-08-2010, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by paulelescoces

On the idea of seals drying out, lens was purchased in January in Adorama so is only 8 months old, I could imagine this being more the case after many years. The service technician suggested that the seals looked ok so I am pretty confused at how water can enter..... although, from the oxidation it cetrainly looks to enter via the 2 electrical contacts (would also help explain why the camera was also shortly affected)

On studying the photos.. I would tend to think it does not look too bad, the entrance of the electrical contacts looks the area worst hit.. my limited knowledge would suggest that cleaning this up and cleaning the circuit boards would likely fix the issue (expecting that chip & motor are not fried)

If the lens was purchased in January, is there not a warranty from Pentax on this?

jamesm007 · 09-08-2010, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by paulelescoces

On the idea of seals drying out, lens was purchased in January in Adorama so is only 8 months old, I could imagine this being more the case after many years. The service technician suggested that the seals looked ok so I am pretty confused at how water can enter..... although, from the oxidation it cetrainly looks to enter via the 2 electrical contacts (would also help explain why the camera was also shortly affected)

On studying the photos.. I would tend to think it does not look too bad, the entrance of the electrical contacts looks the area worst hit.. my limited knowledge would suggest that cleaning this up and cleaning the circuit boards would likely fix the issue (expecting that chip & motor are not fried)

I have read of water entering a WR Pentax body, in each case (4) it was because of the use of a non-WR lens or a DA* zoom (DA*16-50mm, DA*50-135mm). I think a search could turn the post up if you wanted. However the point is it was the DA* lens that leaked causing damage to the whole system as yours did. Your not the first with a DA*16-50mm that leaked or DA* zoom period . Although to put it into proper perspective its very rare; many have expose them to all kinds of weather and for much longer periods of time, and have no problems.

If you have the time and energy I would fight this. It was used within designed, implied and advertised conditions, it simply failed! You really do IMHO as long as you have never dropped your lens/camera, taken decent care of them should get a new lens, as you just had bad luck

.

paulelescoces · 09-09-2010, 01:25 AM

On the warranty, according to the service centre water damage is not covered...

I plan to bring this complaint to pentax, have asked the service centre about sending me the lens back... first call is likely to be the customer service email... and take it from there, interested to know on any better contacts you may know of.

**interested_observer** · 09-09-2010, 06:28 AM - **1 Like**

Well, let's see.... You didn't take the camera SCUBA diving, you were caught out in the rain. You took reasonable steps to dry off and dry out the camera and lens after getting wet, also it looks like you tried to protect the unit on your way back home. Both the camera and lens were sealed, and Pentax advertises Weather Resistant (WR) - who are you going to believe here - Pentax was advertising some level of protection. So, I can see Pentax not covering water damage, if you took it SCUBA diving. But getting wet on the way home, then I have to ask, just what does Pentax mean in their advertising with respect to "Weather Resistant"?

They have pictorial advertising copy out of the camera and body wet (water drops and water beaded up all around it), and with mud all over it sitting on a rock in the middle of a stream. They advertise their 72 camera body seals.

Pentax K20d-Slr Review: Shake Reduction, Lens Mount, Lenses

So at best, you should not have to pay full retail replacement cost. They should cover at a minimum 50% of the lens cost (not retail, but what the lens is sold to the retail shop for - wholesale, and no sales or VAT tax either). Given that Pentax wants its users to believe that there is some benefit to WR, then I would say that they should cover 70 to 80% of the replacement cost at wholesale. I know that sealing a camera/lens set is not an absolute science with the variables involved. I know that is not the way they see it, but there is some inherent defect here I would have to think. A 8 month old DA* lens should not be trashed after being out in the rain - based on their own implied advertising. If this is not the situation that WR and the * seals were designed for, please Pentax tell us what the situation is? This begs the question of "how much weather is too much for weather resistance"? If they are going to claim that water damage is not covered, then Pentax should define exactly just what weather resistant actually means in a repeatable engineering sense. How much water - a light fog? a misting of water vapor? a very humid day (less than 30% humidity)? or ??? ? Inquiring minds would like to know.

I would also cite this thread, and the number of hits it is getting. A 2,334 hits currently and counting(I might add), I would say that there is some level of interest in Pentax's response. Certainly counteracting Pentax's advertising to some degree.

Actually, the best thing that they could do, is to quietly replace the lens, take it back to the lab and figure out what went wrong, use it as a learning experience in terms of manufacturing and quality control, improve their processes, and everyone benefits. If, I were Pentax, I would then send it to the lead lens designer for sealing the unit, for his "trophy case" of failures.

This is the level of customer service that destroys a carefully laid out and executed advertising campaign and marketing approach. They put the engineering up front to seal the units, advertised it correctly, and now with a failure - not covering any "water damage", does not make any sense.

paulelescoces · 09-09-2010, 07:03 AM

Sure, I will keep this thread up to date with any developments, cant fault customer service yet as I have only just made contact (says reply within 3 days) so need to give them an opporutnity to impress... Reflecta service were very helpful... free "look" and some photos of the issue but ultimately did not fix the problem.

Is also bizarre that the marketing/sales information also differs by territory... in UK is weather sealed... in US is weather resistant. Maybe making too much of the wording but "sealed" seems to mean more than just resistant... almost seems intentionally vague... and as you pointed out whats the value in WR if they have no actions to backup the marketing.

**interested_observer** · 09-09-2010, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by paulelescoces

Is also bizarre that the marketing/sales information also differs by territory... in UK is weather sealed... in US is weather resistant. Maybe making too much of the wording but "sealed" seems to mean more than just resistant... almost seems intentionally vague... and as you pointed out whats the value in WR if they have no actions to backup the marketing.

... regardless of the marketing terms and descriptions, they are all the same camera / lens, produced in the same manufacturing facility, from the same design, with the same specifications, by the same parent company. Does the distributor / sales force change anything physical on the basic camera and lens - not really.

paulelescoces · 09-09-2010, 08:21 AM

sure, understand its the same lens, same factory etc..., was more a comment around the vagueness of the WR capabilities.

**interested_observer** · 09-10-2010, 02:10 AM

Morning Paul, It was more of a rhetorical question/statement for Pentax than a comment to you...

I understand Pentax's reluctance to cover water damage, but then there is some implied responsibility for promoting sealed weather resistant systems (camera body/lens).

Skog · 09-10-2010, 02:58 AM

Hmm I have been considering going WR all the way for some while now, since I shoot outdoors/wildlife exclusively. And that possibility was my main reason for going with pentax. This has me confused now. Your equipment is WR, but warranty wont cover water damage? Sounds like bullshit to me.

paulelescoces · 09-10-2010, 04:24 AM

Hi Skog, it does seem like mine is quite an isolated case but it is cetrainly confusing that the warrantys do not back the marketing.

I still need to give Pentax Customer Service a few days to react, a happy ending is still a possibility

paulelescoces · 09-14-2010, 02:56 AM

No reply from Pentax Customer Service and now 3 working days have passed

I have also now emailed Pentax USA to see if their customer service is any better.

paulelescoces · 09-16-2010, 08:58 AM

Not real progress.... but just had my first couple of contacts with Pentax CS and I found them be friendly and helpful.

Contacted Pentax CS in US via gthe live chat tool, CS rep gave me the details for applying for the international warranty.

Called to Pentax CS in UK, helpful on the phone, when I explained him briefly he suggested "aah, you sent a mail a few days ago"... good that they seem to have a handle on whats going on... he said case had been escalated to the head office... no definitive answer of course but "escalation" sounds good.

still hoping for a happy ending

reeftool · 09-16-2010, 10:29 AM

One of things I have a problem with, reading this thread after it has bee running for a while, is the corrosion on the circuit board. Corrosion doesn't happen a few days after a single exposure to moisture. Any circuit board installed in a "weather resistant" product should be coated with a clear coat to seal the whole thing from the elements. This board appears to have never been coated. I'll bet this lens has been exposed to moisture before.

09-08-2010, 08:37 AM	#32
Cambo Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Vancouver, BC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,016	Shower caps... I always collect them when I'm staying at a hotel/motel. My travelling companions think I'm nuts (I'm a bald guy), but they sure are handy for protecting camera gear. Cheers, Cameron Originally posted by JohnBee I would put silica gel pack in the battery compartment too. Keep in mind that seals can shrink or crack with and that nothing is garanteed when it comes to weather proofing. My K20's are over two years old and I wouldn't trust them in a downpour. Which is why I always carry a pack with a rain cover in it(just in case). Here's to hoping for a graceful recovery!

09-08-2010, 07:25 PM	#34
jamesm007 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Detroit MI, USA Posts: 508	Originally posted by paulelescoces On the idea of seals drying out, lens was purchased in January in Adorama so is only 8 months old, I could imagine this being more the case after many years. The service technician suggested that the seals looked ok so I am pretty confused at how water can enter..... although, from the oxidation it cetrainly looks to enter via the 2 electrical contacts (would also help explain why the camera was also shortly affected) On studying the photos.. I would tend to think it does not look too bad, the entrance of the electrical contacts looks the area worst hit.. my limited knowledge would suggest that cleaning this up and cleaning the circuit boards would likely fix the issue (expecting that chip & motor are not fried) I have read of water entering a WR Pentax body, in each case (4) it was because of the use of a non-WR lens or a DA* zoom (DA16-50mm, DA50-135mm). I think a search could turn the post up if you wanted. However the point is it was the DA* lens that leaked causing damage to the whole system as yours did. Your not the first with a DA16-50mm that leaked or DA zoom period . Although to put it into proper perspective its very rare; many have expose them to all kinds of weather and for much longer periods of time, and have no problems. If you have the time and energy I would fight this. It was used within designed, implied and advertised conditions, it simply failed! You really do IMHO as long as you have never dropped your lens/camera, taken decent care of them should get a new lens, as you just had bad luck.

09-09-2010, 06:28 AM - 1 Like	#36
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	Well, let's see.... You didn't take the camera SCUBA diving, you were caught out in the rain. You took reasonable steps to dry off and dry out the camera and lens after getting wet, also it looks like you tried to protect the unit on your way back home. Both the camera and lens were sealed, and Pentax advertises Weather Resistant (WR) - who are you going to believe here - Pentax was advertising some level of protection. So, I can see Pentax not covering water damage, if you took it SCUBA diving. But getting wet on the way home, then I have to ask, just what does Pentax mean in their advertising with respect to "Weather Resistant"? They have pictorial advertising copy out of the camera and body wet (water drops and water beaded up all around it), and with mud all over it sitting on a rock in the middle of a stream. They advertise their 72 camera body seals. Pentax K20d-Slr Review: Shake Reduction, Lens Mount, Lenses So at best, you should not have to pay full retail replacement cost. They should cover at a minimum 50% of the lens cost (not retail, but what the lens is sold to the retail shop for - wholesale, and no sales or VAT tax either). Given that Pentax wants its users to believe that there is some benefit to WR, then I would say that they should cover 70 to 80% of the replacement cost at wholesale. I know that sealing a camera/lens set is not an absolute science with the variables involved. I know that is not the way they see it, but there is some inherent defect here I would have to think. A 8 month old DA* lens should not be trashed after being out in the rain - based on their own implied advertising. If this is not the situation that WR and the * seals were designed for, please Pentax tell us what the situation is? This begs the question of "how much weather is too much for weather resistance"? If they are going to claim that water damage is not covered, then Pentax should define exactly just what weather resistant actually means in a repeatable engineering sense. How much water - a light fog? a misting of water vapor? a very humid day (less than 30% humidity)? or ??? ? Inquiring minds would like to know. I would also cite this thread, and the number of hits it is getting. A 2,334 hits currently and counting(I might add), I would say that there is some level of interest in Pentax's response. Certainly counteracting Pentax's advertising to some degree. Actually, the best thing that they could do, is to quietly replace the lens, take it back to the lab and figure out what went wrong, use it as a learning experience in terms of manufacturing and quality control, improve their processes, and everyone benefits. If, I were Pentax, I would then send it to the lead lens designer for sealing the unit, for his "trophy case" of failures. This is the level of customer service that destroys a carefully laid out and executed advertising campaign and marketing approach. They put the engineering up front to seal the units, advertised it correctly, and now with a failure - not covering any "water damage", does not make any sense. Last edited by interested_observer; 09-09-2010 at 06:45 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Extension tubes - which ones/can the damage?	R.ticle One	Pentax DSLR Discussion	13	02-03-2014 04:28 PM
Can I damage my camera ?	chromo	Pentax DSLR Discussion	12	04-25-2010 11:14 PM
FA*300mm with damage to the coating?	DanielT74	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	10-09-2009 06:45 PM
Warranty/Damage Protection	JohnnyDop	Photographic Technique	3	12-03-2008 07:32 PM
K20D in the rain.	Tingchaleun	Pentax DSLR Discussion	21	06-10-2008 07:24 AM

09-08-2010, 06:11 AM	#31
paulelescoces Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Switzerland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 252 Original Poster	On the idea of seals drying out, lens was purchased in January in Adorama so is only 8 months old, I could imagine this being more the case after many years. The service technician suggested that the seals looked ok so I am pretty confused at how water can enter..... although, from the oxidation it cetrainly looks to enter via the 2 electrical contacts (would also help explain why the camera was also shortly affected) On studying the photos.. I would tend to think it does not look too bad, the entrance of the electrical contacts looks the area worst hit.. my limited knowledge would suggest that cleaning this up and cleaning the circuit boards would likely fix the issue (expecting that chip & motor are not fried)

09-08-2010, 04:28 PM	#33
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	Originally posted by paulelescoces On the idea of seals drying out, lens was purchased in January in Adorama so is only 8 months old, I could imagine this being more the case after many years. The service technician suggested that the seals looked ok so I am pretty confused at how water can enter..... although, from the oxidation it cetrainly looks to enter via the 2 electrical contacts (would also help explain why the camera was also shortly affected) On studying the photos.. I would tend to think it does not look too bad, the entrance of the electrical contacts looks the area worst hit.. my limited knowledge would suggest that cleaning this up and cleaning the circuit boards would likely fix the issue (expecting that chip & motor are not fried) If the lens was purchased in January, is there not a warranty from Pentax on this?

09-09-2010, 01:25 AM	#35
paulelescoces Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Switzerland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 252 Original Poster	On the warranty, according to the service centre water damage is not covered... I plan to bring this complaint to pentax, have asked the service centre about sending me the lens back... first call is likely to be the customer service email... and take it from there, interested to know on any better contacts you may know of.

09-09-2010, 07:03 AM	#37
paulelescoces Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Switzerland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 252 Original Poster	Sure, I will keep this thread up to date with any developments, cant fault customer service yet as I have only just made contact (says reply within 3 days) so need to give them an opporutnity to impress... Reflecta service were very helpful... free "look" and some photos of the issue but ultimately did not fix the problem. Is also bizarre that the marketing/sales information also differs by territory... in UK is weather sealed... in US is weather resistant. Maybe making too much of the wording but "sealed" seems to mean more than just resistant... almost seems intentionally vague... and as you pointed out whats the value in WR if they have no actions to backup the marketing.

09-09-2010, 08:00 AM	#38
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	Originally posted by paulelescoces Is also bizarre that the marketing/sales information also differs by territory... in UK is weather sealed... in US is weather resistant. Maybe making too much of the wording but "sealed" seems to mean more than just resistant... almost seems intentionally vague... and as you pointed out whats the value in WR if they have no actions to backup the marketing. ... regardless of the marketing terms and descriptions, they are all the same camera / lens, produced in the same manufacturing facility, from the same design, with the same specifications, by the same parent company. Does the distributor / sales force change anything physical on the basic camera and lens - not really.

09-09-2010, 08:21 AM	#39
paulelescoces Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Switzerland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 252 Original Poster	sure, understand its the same lens, same factory etc..., was more a comment around the vagueness of the WR capabilities.

09-10-2010, 02:10 AM	#40
interested_observer Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,707	Morning Paul, It was more of a rhetorical question/statement for Pentax than a comment to you... I understand Pentax's reluctance to cover water damage, but then there is some implied responsibility for promoting sealed weather resistant systems (camera body/lens).

09-10-2010, 02:58 AM	#41
Skog Inactive Account Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 167	Hmm I have been considering going WR all the way for some while now, since I shoot outdoors/wildlife exclusively. And that possibility was my main reason for going with pentax. This has me confused now. Your equipment is WR, but warranty wont cover water damage? Sounds like bullshit to me.

09-10-2010, 04:24 AM	#42
paulelescoces Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Switzerland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 252 Original Poster	Hi Skog, it does seem like mine is quite an isolated case but it is cetrainly confusing that the warrantys do not back the marketing. I still need to give Pentax Customer Service a few days to react, a happy ending is still a possibility

09-14-2010, 02:56 AM	#43
paulelescoces Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Switzerland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 252 Original Poster	No reply from Pentax Customer Service and now 3 working days have passed I have also now emailed Pentax USA to see if their customer service is any better.

09-16-2010, 08:58 AM	#44
paulelescoces Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Switzerland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 252 Original Poster	Not real progress.... but just had my first couple of contacts with Pentax CS and I found them be friendly and helpful. Contacted Pentax CS in US via gthe live chat tool, CS rep gave me the details for applying for the international warranty. Called to Pentax CS in UK, helpful on the phone, when I explained him briefly he suggested "aah, you sent a mail a few days ago"... good that they seem to have a handle on whats going on... he said case had been escalated to the head office... no definitive answer of course but "escalation" sounds good. still hoping for a happy ending

09-16-2010, 10:29 AM	#45
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,554	One of things I have a problem with, reading this thread after it has bee running for a while, is the corrosion on the circuit board. Corrosion doesn't happen a few days after a single exposure to moisture. Any circuit board installed in a "weather resistant" product should be coated with a clear coat to seal the whole thing from the elements. This board appears to have never been coated. I'll bet this lens has been exposed to moisture before.