All Forum Comments
Comment by johnriley posted on eye-watering water-damage repair cost for K5+18-135mm at 08/08/2013 - 07:50
It's best if images are not too large, otherwise the forum software may try to resize them, with less than optimum results.
Comment by johnriley posted on K5 soft focus, poor colour contrast and detail at 07/08/2013 - 18:39
I'm not sure who sells new ones, but they are the stuff of camera fairs and eBay. If you can't find one I'll check my stock of oddments, but try eBay first.
Comment by johnriley posted on K10D Flash Sync. socket.... at 07/08/2013 - 18:10
So, perhaps we could all try to get along a little bit better and remember that the for sale threads need to be used openly for buying/selling and for nothing else.
Many thanks.
Comment by johnriley posted on FS: Teleplus Pz-AF 1.7X SHQ Teleconverter at 07/08/2013 - 17:45
Without a white line, for example, your image bottom left would bleed into a black background. The second black line is unnecessary for me, and it certainly would be on black!
Comment by johnriley posted on Borders on B&W images at 07/08/2013 - 16:37
If and when I do observe some moire, I'll let you know!
Comment by johnriley posted on K5 2S moire-Just for the record at 07/08/2013 - 16:35
If you seek moire you will find it, if you just go out and shoot normal images you are highly unlikely to find it's a problem.
Comment by johnriley posted on K5 2S moire-Just for the record at 07/08/2013 - 16:01
Comment by johnriley posted on FS: Teleplus Pz-AF 1.7X SHQ Teleconverter at 07/08/2013 - 15:19
Comment by johnriley posted on K5 2S moire-Just for the record at 07/08/2013 - 15:16
Comment by johnriley posted on K5 2S moire-Just for the record at 07/08/2013 - 14:26


If that's the case, probably better to wait and see how it develops with the repair house, and subsequently, should you approach them directly, how it is approached by Pentax?
It strikes me that if a repair was so expensive it would be more logical for you to be offered a replacement at cost, at the very least. That's without considering the warranty implications.
Now if it's a standard water-damage quote, it also begs the question regarding the fault. As the camera is still working and you just wanted it checked out "in case" then when opened up there might be no water leakage. But even under warranty there would presumably be a charge for this work if it was shown that actually nothing was wrong after all?