Weatherproofing - Lifespan

JAK, I was talking about weather resistance not waterproofness.

Is it not a matter of degree? Being caught out in a rainstorm doesn't seem to faze any of my Pentax bodies, but maybe the torrential downpour of a gargantuan waterfall plus the spray might be a challenge. It also then depends on where the water gets in, whether or not the lens is fully WR or simplified WR or even marked as AW (All Weather).

Air already in a camera can change its form due to temperature changes. It's to do with the Dew Point Temperature causing condensation to occur.
This explains how it happens.

And for the basics: https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/6-mistakes-will-ruin-dslr-avoid/

It isn't really just about being weather-proof or waterproof, how you you differentiate these conditions? If water's pouring onto you and your camera from a waterfall or out of the sky, are you repelling weather or water?

Remember the magazine ads with the K1 in a steamy jungle? When the K50 was launched the promo video from Ricoh showed a couple horsing around with a hose to demonstrate it’s sealing. Come on, these products are marketed for their robustness so our perception is that they can take everything except being dunked in a river.

Obviously Jak if the lens and body are separated in a humid environment then you need to take the necessary measures and no-one is pretending they are waterproof.

However the larger flashes are designated as WR but the instructions state they mustn’t be used in wet conditions due to risk of electric shock. I asked the retailer and he said that was just a standard precaution and they were ok, but the hot shoe isn’t sealed with a flash on. Same concern goes for a pop-up flash.

I took it up with the retailer - Camera Centre UK of Cardiff - and made a formal complaint under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. They weren't interested at all - they didn't even bother replying. They had initially (when I first told them the camera was faulty) advised me to send the camera direct to Johnson's to "speed things up". That was in February. Later after complaining as to why nothing was happening and no progress was being made they told me that they could not speak or deal with Johnson's as I had to give my permission for this to take place, and that this was because I had sent it direct to Johnson's! I did then give permission and still no progress was made.

Finally the dealer came back to me and said that the camera was being used in conditions it could not cope with. I am still adamant that it was being used in conditions it is sold as being able to tolerate. I emailed Johnson's last week to enquire about the specifics of the refurbished K3ii being offered for purchase. They forwarded my email to Pentax, and 10 days on, Pentax have not bothered to get back to Johnson's. Johnson's have either emailed me or called me every two or three days to say that they are still chasing Pentax but they have heard nothing.

In the meantime I contacted Pentax and asked specifically for the name of the manager who I could complaint to at Pentax/Ricoh. They opened a case, gave me a number and refused to give me a name. They asked for all the information, so I gave them Johnson's case number and my dealer's info. They then came back to me and said that they were not the dealer and were not Johnson's! Quite how they could not ask their official repairer for any information is beyond me. I got the impression that they were just box ticking.

I would like to think that behind the scenes Pentax are working hard to find a resolution before contacting Johnson's. I think it more likely that they just hope I go away.

No I don't remember! I don't take notice of any adverts, never have.
As to adverts, they've always been faked. In black & white TV days they used yellow clothing to look bright and shiny as white clothing looked dull. That was to show their powder was whiter than white!
Food ads are faked, I don't trust any of them. In fact I normally go out of my way not to buy anything I've knowingly seen advertised, one always feels let down by reality!
As to that Pentax ad (I didn't know they'd been any for donkeys years as the lack of them is what users complain about here!) It's quite likely a new camera straight from the factory might have fine WR seals still. Give it 18 months use and time takes its toll. If they'd had a take where the camera seals failed, do you believe they'd have shown it?
In any event, a large waterfall with cold water in a hot humid climate is something else entirely. Its the condensation that occurs both inside and outside the camera making it wet (same as when one wears a plastic raincoat on a warm wet humid day, the inside gets soaked but it won't have leaked.)
Best advice, ignore too good to be true claims in adverts!
Plenty of big names featured here: https://www.asa.org.uk/codes-and-rulings/rulings.html names you'd think you could trust.

I was using the 16-85mm WR. I doubt I did much zooming as the nature of the place is that it suits wide angle shots. I forgot to mention (I did tell Pentax) that last year on holiday I saw an ant under the LCD screen! It makes me wonder how it got in there if seals are supposed to be so good. This was on a holiday where I never changed lenses too.

Reminds me when I had a fully formed small tortoiseshell butterfly in between the car speedometer and its covering glass. Took me a while to dismantle it all to release it. As to how an ant got passed the weather seals I suspect it got into a lens you weren't using and moved across later when you used the lens but wasn't looking!
If a camera has genuinely failed due to a manufacturing fault then it certainly should be fixed or replaced (within a reasonable period of time.) If its failed by heavy use in challenging conditions it isn't so clear cut. Similar to buying a new car and entering it in the Dakar rally and taking it back to the dealer afterwards complaining its worn out. Maybe you need to budget for a new camera annually or get it insured (if anyone would bear the risk?) I mentioned it earlier, have you tried claiming on your home insurance? (Something like this: https://www.hiscox.co.uk/home-insurance/contents-insurance/camera-insurance )

"Dakar Rally" ! When I was at college (decades ago!) one of the Uni Motor Club rallied a pretty new Mini Moke (!, but it was very light and "fast", given that it only had the basic Mini 848cc motor - and that he was a bit of a "maniac" driver) and then took it back after a rally because something had "gone wrong"/"got bent" whilst still "under warrantee" - and, apparently the dealer concerned did actually "pay up"!!
PS: here is the guy in question "(Phil Short - he was/is over 6ft tall! ) "now"

From the horse's mouth, or the official Pentax K-1 brochure:



The same claim is made for the K3II on the Ricoh website and “the best photo camera for expedition shooting”.

The f2.8 70-200mm and 150-450mm lenses are both AW, several others are WR.

The K3ii is sold as providing "Worry-free shooting even in severe conditions with rain and dust"
There is no way that the conditions I was using it in were 'severe'. For obvious reasons I was trying to keep the rain off it as I didn't want the lens to get water on the front.
Pentax know that weather sealing sells cameras - it's almost their marketing department's only USP. Trouble is that you can't have it both ways. You either have to say that the cameras should not be exposed to rain, or you claim that they can, and then honour the odd warranty claim when one fails to cope with rain.

When I see their photos with cameras covered in water drops and even the shot of the K3 being hit by a load of water it leaves a sour taste, given my experience.

They also claim "A dust proof and weather-resistant construction is used to prevent rain, sand, and dust from entering the camera."

So, they state it can be used in severe conditions, they state that its design is so good that rain is prevented from entering the camera, and then when it happens on an 18 month old camera they walk away. Great.

WR =Weather resistant not the same as Weather or water proof as has been pointed out in posts on this site in the past. how resistant is the same as asking how long does a light bulb last, your guess is as good as mine.

"WR" versus "weatherproof" is, forever, going to be a point of "argument" - but Ricoh should put its "money where its mouth is" on the few occasions when users suffer actual issues/damage

I worked in an outdoor store, and waterproof packs suited most who would be out on day walks/basic overnighters.
Every once in a while a 'real' tramper would come back to complain that their pack leaked.

Reality was they weren't as good as advertised, when really put to the test.

I think Pentax does weather sealing really well, and I like that I don't have to go running for cover as it starts to rain. However, you have to be reasonable and if you need waterproof, you need waterproof.

I like the idea of replacing the main lens o-ring seals every 5 years or so. That makes a lot of sense.

I also agree that if someone has suffered damage, in reasonably fair conditions, then Pentax should come to the party. You can't advertise on a feature you're not going to stand by, especially where your advertising suggests it's better than it is.

Easy for me to say, as I haven't had an issue with any Pentax kit, BUT, if I were in the position that's being discussed here then it would be Small Claims Court, complaint to Advertising Standards Agency, etc, anything to send a resounding message to Pentax that it's cheaper, much cheaper, to buy me off as a Good Will gesture than ignore me/fob me off.

See you in Court is cheap for me, but expensive in many ways for a company/Brand like Pentax.