Pentax/Camera Marketplace |
Pentax Items for Sale |
Wanted Pentax Items |
Pentax Deals |
Deal Finder & Price Alerts |
Price Watch Forum |
My Marketplace Activity |
List a New Item |
Get seller access! |
Pentax Stores |
Pentax Retailer Map |
Pentax Photos |
Sample Photo Search |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Today's Photos |
Free Photo Storage |
Member Photo Albums |
User Photo Gallery |
Exclusive Gallery |
Photo Community |
Photo Sharing Forum |
Critique Forum |
Official Photo Contests |
World Pentax Day Gallery |
World Pentax Day Photo Map |
Pentax Resources |
Articles and Tutorials |
Member-Submitted Articles |
Recommended Gear |
Firmware Update Guide |
Firmware Updates |
Pentax News |
Pentax Lens Databases |
Pentax Lens Reviews |
Pentax Lens Search |
Third-Party Lens Reviews |
Lens Compatibility |
Pentax Serial Number Database |
In-Depth Reviews |
SLR Lens Forum |
Sample Photo Archive |
Forum Discussions |
New Posts |
Today's Threads |
Photo Threads |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Recent Updates |
Today's Photos |
Quick Searches |
Unanswered Threads |
Recently Liked Posts |
Forum RSS Feed |
Go to Page... |
|
Search this Thread |
05-06-2018, 03:40 AM | #31 |
05-06-2018, 01:14 PM | #32 |
05-15-2018, 01:15 AM | #33 |
My first Pentax was the K20D, the main reason I purchase it was the weather sealing, coz I shoot lot of outdoors, I can't find any other made with weather sealing at that price point. My one did get water leaking problem, the top LCD got moisture condensation like ordinary waterproof watches, but didn't hurt the electronics it still shoot, please note I use only weather seal lenses in the rain and did not change lens in out door, so the camera body should remain dry inside. The camera occasionally freeze up and need to remove the battery to restart, not caused by water damage, this problem also on the K7 but not the K5 and K3. My K3 got water damage in a down pour caused it complete blackout, the water entered from the battery door and ruined the electronics, coz I put the camera up side down with a sling strap. Pentax first refused to repair FOC said it was caused by human error, but I insist I did not do anything wrong with it, after some 'communications' the camera was sent back to Japan for inspection, after 3 mths I got a brand new replacement FOC ! I use battery grip all the time ever since for added water protection.
| |
07-07-2018, 02:02 PM - 1 Like | #34 |
My first Pentax was the K50 followed by the K3, and a big factor in purchase was weather sealing. The advice given in this thread is excellent, but I will say that the weather sealing has been very effective in my situations. I try to shield my camera as best I can, but during shooting it can be tricky at times. I have shot in torrential blowing rain as well as in a dust storm in the middle of a dune field and am yet to see either camera fail from moisture issues. The K50 has aperture/shutter issues, but that's another story... | |
These users Like bhbrake's post: |
07-16-2018, 03:43 AM | #35 |
With a few notable exceptions, most threads on this site that specifically relate to weather seals generally fall into three main groups: reports of failed seals and/or rants about expectation of seal performance and/or Ricoh voiding warranty when water is found inside the camera. The standard responses range from success stories ("seals saved my camera"), sympathy comments, more rant, and suggestions of user (victim?) blame. That last is particularly prominent to the point that I have been thinking that a short treatise on user responsibility may be more kind and ultimately more helpful. Note that this note specifically excludes discussion of lens flange seals and/or use of focus/zoom on a sealed lens. The intent here is focus on the body only.* Mods: Feel free to relocate if needed A few initial talking points:
When water gets in with help from the user I have my K-3 in front of me as I type. Pentax claims 92 environmental seals and has featured photos and video showing the camera quite thoroughly wet, if not soaked. That appears to be a clear invitation to excess. On the body, I count six points where user behavior may reduce the benefit of the camera's seals. They are (working from the top down)...
As is noted above, time is not our friend where water is concerned and while there are well-documented occurrences where a Pentax camera has survived full immersion or cleaning under a gentle stream of water, prompt removal of standing water from the camera is a prudent course of action. Some additional thoughts regarding time and pressure...
On the subject of humidity Water in the camera is not always due to seal failure and damage to internal components due to moisture is not always due to gross incursion of liquid water. The sad truth is that water vapor in the air will follow the concentration gradient and while seals may slow the process, eventually the vapor pressure of H2O inside will be the same as on the outside. Moist air may encourage growth of fungus and when the camera passes from a warm, high humidity environment into a cooler space, condensation on internal surfaces, including electronics and optics, may occur as a result. This has always been a problem for cameras and lenses, particularly in the tropical parts of the globe where specialized storage in low humidity cabinets is not unusual. Another common humidity risk element is present in cold winter areas where outside air is cold and dry with indoors air often being somewhat more humid. Moving a camera filled with warm moist air to a 10°F (-12°C) outdoors will result in condensation within the camera and/or lens. The most obvious indication is condensation on internal optics and mirrors. Note that moving to an air-conditioned space from the humid summer outdoors is very similar. There are many approaches to dealing with humidity and condensation and a full discussion of a little off-topic. Google is our friend. Many thanks to user @JinDesu for suggesting expanded content on humidity. Please indulge a small aside on the matter of hermetic (love that word) seals. User expectation often is that the camera should be warrantied watertight. The logical extension is that the camera be fairly airtight as well. There are troubling implications to both in that once water or moisture-laden air gets in, it may be very difficult to get the wet out again. The seals work against us and there is a good reason to not make them too tight. It is my belief that Ricoh/Pentax should extend a grace in their warranty restrictions where condensation is a potential cause for water damage. Best Practices I won't guaranty that following these suggestions will save one from wet grief, but they are common practice and field-tested and I do believe them to be of value.
When to weep The following indicators of water penetration have been reported by users on this site...
Mitigation There are multiple reports from users on this site of successful drying after a mild incursion. I have never had to perform the procedure, but conventional wisdom goes something like this:
Steve * The rational is partly for convenience and partly due to my lack of experience with sealed lenses (yes, I shoot in the rain without such and have done so for decades). ** Yes, I wrote ice chest and yes, I did see this and no, it was not my camera | |
07-28-2018, 06:23 PM | #36 |
With a few notable exceptions, most threads on this site that specifically relate to weather seals generally fall into three main groups: reports of failed seals and/or rants about expectation of seal performance and/or Ricoh voiding warranty when water is found inside the camera. The standard responses range from success stories ("seals saved my camera"), sympathy comments, more rant, and suggestions of user (victim?) blame. That last is particularly prominent to the point that I have been thinking that a short treatise on user responsibility may be more kind and ultimately more helpful. Note that this note specifically excludes discussion of lens flange seals and/or use of focus/zoom on a sealed lens. The intent here is focus on the body only.* Mods: Feel free to relocate if needed A few initial talking points:
When water gets in with help from the user I have my K-3 in front of me as I type. Pentax claims 92 environmental seals and has featured photos and video showing the camera quite thoroughly wet, if not soaked. That appears to be a clear invitation to excess. On the body, I count six points where user behavior may reduce the benefit of the camera's seals. They are (working from the top down)...
As is noted above, time is not our friend where water is concerned and while there are well-documented occurrences where a Pentax camera has survived full immersion or cleaning under a gentle stream of water, prompt removal of standing water from the camera is a prudent course of action. Some additional thoughts regarding time and pressure...
On the subject of humidity Water in the camera is not always due to seal failure and damage to internal components due to moisture is not always due to gross incursion of liquid water. The sad truth is that water vapor in the air will follow the concentration gradient and while seals may slow the process, eventually the vapor pressure of H2O inside will be the same as on the outside. Moist air may encourage growth of fungus and when the camera passes from a warm, high humidity environment into a cooler space, condensation on internal surfaces, including electronics and optics, may occur as a result. This has always been a problem for cameras and lenses, particularly in the tropical parts of the globe where specialized storage in low humidity cabinets is not unusual. Another common humidity risk element is present in cold winter areas where outside air is cold and dry with indoors air often being somewhat more humid. Moving a camera filled with warm moist air to a 10°F (-12°C) outdoors will result in condensation within the camera and/or lens. The most obvious indication is condensation on internal optics and mirrors. Note that moving to an air-conditioned space from the humid summer outdoors is very similar. There are many approaches to dealing with humidity and condensation and a full discussion of a little off-topic. Google is our friend. Many thanks to user @JinDesu for suggesting expanded content on humidity. Please indulge a small aside on the matter of hermetic (love that word) seals. User expectation often is that the camera should be warrantied watertight. The logical extension is that the camera be fairly airtight as well. There are troubling implications to both in that once water or moisture-laden air gets in, it may be very difficult to get the wet out again. The seals work against us and there is a good reason to not make them too tight. It is my belief that Ricoh/Pentax should extend a grace in their warranty restrictions where condensation is a potential cause for water damage. Best Practices I won't guaranty that following these suggestions will save one from wet grief, but they are common practice and field-tested and I do believe them to be of value.
When to weep The following indicators of water penetration have been reported by users on this site...
Mitigation There are multiple reports from users on this site of successful drying after a mild incursion. I have never had to perform the procedure, but conventional wisdom goes something like this:
Steve * The rational is partly for convenience and partly due to my lack of experience with sealed lenses (yes, I shoot in the rain without such and have done so for decades). ** Yes, I wrote ice chest and yes, I did see this and no, it was not my camera | |
07-28-2018, 06:46 PM | #37 |
With a few notable exceptions, most threads on this site that specifically relate to weather seals generally fall into three main groups: reports of failed seals and/or rants about expectation of seal performance and/or Ricoh voiding warranty when water is found inside the camera. The standard responses range from success stories ("seals saved my camera"), sympathy comments, more rant, and suggestions of user (victim?) blame. That last is particularly prominent to the point that I have been thinking that a short treatise on user responsibility may be more kind and ultimately more helpful. Note that this note specifically excludes discussion of lens flange seals and/or use of focus/zoom on a sealed lens. The intent here is focus on the body only.* Mods: Feel free to relocate if needed A few initial talking points:
When water gets in with help from the user I have my K-3 in front of me as I type. Pentax claims 92 environmental seals and has featured photos and video showing the camera quite thoroughly wet, if not soaked. That appears to be a clear invitation to excess. On the body, I count six points where user behavior may reduce the benefit of the camera's seals. They are (working from the top down)...
As is noted above, time is not our friend where water is concerned and while there are well-documented occurrences where a Pentax camera has survived full immersion or cleaning under a gentle stream of water, prompt removal of standing water from the camera is a prudent course of action. Some additional thoughts regarding time and pressure...
On the subject of humidity Water in the camera is not always due to seal failure and damage to internal components due to moisture is not always due to gross incursion of liquid water. The sad truth is that water vapor in the air will follow the concentration gradient and while seals may slow the process, eventually the vapor pressure of H2O inside will be the same as on the outside. Moist air may encourage growth of fungus and when the camera passes from a warm, high humidity environment into a cooler space, condensation on internal surfaces, including electronics and optics, may occur as a result. This has always been a problem for cameras and lenses, particularly in the tropical parts of the globe where specialized storage in low humidity cabinets is not unusual. Another common humidity risk element is present in cold winter areas where outside air is cold and dry with indoors air often being somewhat more humid. Moving a camera filled with warm moist air to a 10°F (-12°C) outdoors will result in condensation within the camera and/or lens. The most obvious indication is condensation on internal optics and mirrors. Note that moving to an air-conditioned space from the humid summer outdoors is very similar. There are many approaches to dealing with humidity and condensation and a full discussion of a little off-topic. Google is our friend. Many thanks to user @JinDesu for suggesting expanded content on humidity. Please indulge a small aside on the matter of hermetic (love that word) seals. User expectation often is that the camera should be warrantied watertight. The logical extension is that the camera be fairly airtight as well. There are troubling implications to both in that once water or moisture-laden air gets in, it may be very difficult to get the wet out again. The seals work against us and there is a good reason to not make them too tight. It is my belief that Ricoh/Pentax should extend a grace in their warranty restrictions where condensation is a potential cause for water damage. Best Practices I won't guaranty that following these suggestions will save one from wet grief, but they are common practice and field-tested and I do believe them to be of value.
When to weep The following indicators of water penetration have been reported by users on this site...
Mitigation There are multiple reports from users on this site of successful drying after a mild incursion. I have never had to perform the procedure, but conventional wisdom goes something like this:
Steve * The rational is partly for convenience and partly due to my lack of experience with sealed lenses (yes, I shoot in the rain without such and have done so for decades). ** Yes, I wrote ice chest and yes, I did see this and no, it was not my camera | |
08-15-2018, 08:47 AM | #38 |
WR is weather resist
I use the seals to keep the camera going as it starts to rain before I don a weather sleeve. Although my 55-300mm is WR my 35mm and 50mm are not. Here a hand becomes useful. Alternatively, an oversized coat makes for a nice tent shelter. Let it rain!
| |
08-15-2018, 03:35 PM - 1 Like | #39 |
- Using a hood helps to avoid water on the front element, especially if you're aware of the direction of any wind - A rocket blower can be surprisingly effective in the field for removing water droplets from the optics - Whilst most people here will advise against the use of UV and/or protective "filters", using one means that you can wipe it clean with anything you have to hand. If the weather is inclement, I'll sometimes choose to shoot with a protective filter. When the water droplets on that are at the point where they'll negatively impact my photos, I can wipe it clean with a cloth, tissue, the cuff of my shirt - anything, really - and not have to worry about scratching the front lens element | |
These users Like BigMackCam's post: |
08-15-2018, 04:27 PM - 1 Like | #40 |
Moderator Site Supporter | - Whilst most people here will advise against the use of UV and/or protective "filters", using one means that you can wipe it clean with anything you have to hand. If the weather is inclement, I'll sometimes choose to shoot with a protective filter. When the water droplets on that are at the point where they'll negatively impact my photos, I can wipe it clean with a cloth, tissue, the cuff of my shirt - anything, really - and not have to worry about scratching the front lens element |
These users Like MarkJerling's post: |
08-15-2018, 04:51 PM | #41 |
Thanks, Mark I used to be a big fan of protective filters for just this reason... But I undoubtedly over-used them, leaving them on lenses when it wasn't necessary. Over time, I've realised that even with the best quality filters, there can be a visible impact on image quality - especially on telephoto lenses, and when viewed at 100% reproduction. So, when I can, I shoot without them... but I always have them with me, and if needed, I have absolutely no shame in using them. IQ is important, no doubt, but so is utility. The benefits of a protective filter can - in some situations - outweigh the negatives. I never shoot at the beach without a protective filter, unless there's no wind and rain (rare in these parts, except for this Summer )... | |
08-17-2018, 12:58 PM - 1 Like | #42 |
UV and other protective filters are a kind of photographic double bind. I no longer use them because I am afraid they will degrade the photo but my earlier concern about damage was well placed on a hike in Canyonlands NP when a companions camera swung into the front of my lens. The filter was shattered but no harm done to the lens. What is a fellow to do? I now rely on the hood alone but there is always a nagging concern.
| |
These users Like Mikesul's post: |
08-17-2018, 02:22 PM | #43 |
UV and other protective filters are a kind of photographic double bind. I no longer use them because I am afraid they will degrade the photo but my earlier concern about damage was well placed on a hike in Canyonlands NP when a companions camera swung into the front of my lens. The filter was shattered but no harm done to the lens. What is a fellow to do? I now rely on the hood alone but there is always a nagging concern. But... I've shot that lens numerous times in conditions where I needed to wipe the front element dry from time-to-time, and simply didn't have time to fish out a blower, then a brush, then a lens tissue. I just stuffed what I had with me - a microfibre cloth, or my shirt sleeve or tail - down through the hood opening and wiped the UV filter (vaguely) dry. I wouldn't have been confident doing that without the UV filter in place. Maybe I worry too much, but when I feel it's necessary, I don't have an issue using one | |
08-17-2018, 02:37 PM - 1 Like | #44 |
I can absolutely prove the degradation that even a good quality UV filter can cause at the long end on my DA*60-250. At 100% reproduction on my 17" laptop screen, it's visible. Down-sampling to smaller reproduction sizes quickly diminishes that degradation, but I remain aware of the pitfalls, especially if I'm shooting "loose" and expecting to crop, and even more so if I'm using the HD DA 1.4x TC. But... I've shot that lens numerous times in conditions where I needed to wipe the front element dry from time-to-time, and simply didn't have time to fish out a blower, then a brush, then a lens tissue. I just stuffed what I had with me - a microfibre cloth, or my shirt sleeve or tail - down through the hood opening and wiped the UV filter (vaguely) dry. I wouldn't have been confident doing that without the UV filter in place. Maybe I worry too much, but when I feel it's necessary, I don't have an issue using one | |
These users Like Mikesul's post: |
08-17-2018, 02:43 PM | #45 |
Yep, I read ya Apologies, I didn't mean for my post to come across as a challenge, though I now realise it might have seemed that way | |
|
Bookmarks |
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it! |
battery, body, camera, dslr, failure, k-3, k3, lens, pentax k-3, rain, seals, user, water |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SLR Weather Seals: Pentax LX vs. Rain Forest | stevebrot | Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras | 18 | 08-13-2016 10:55 AM |
Hello folks, old GR user and 645 user - new GRV user and 645Z user, coming fr Leica. | bilbrown | Welcomes and Introductions | 3 | 02-28-2016 03:59 AM |
Weather Seals and LCDs | Sperdynamite | Pentax K-5 & K-5 II | 2 | 08-10-2011 05:48 PM |
Obama Responsibility? | stevewig | General Talk | 19 | 08-03-2011 07:12 PM |
Civic Responsibility? | Venturi | General Talk | 20 | 10-23-2008 01:57 PM |