Weather sealing user’s expectations

Started Feb 11, 2014 | Discussions thread
Zvonimir Tosic
OP Zvonimir Tosic Senior Member • Posts: 2,563
Liquid damage ...

tcom wrote:

Zvonimir Tosic wrote:


Any warranty will be nullified by the manufacturer if the damage to a camera was caused by moist that creeped in when using the K-3 with a non-weather-resistant lens. It is plain common sense, right?

You seem to have another description of the warranty than I have. Ricoh mentions clearly:

Service will be rendered, and defective parts will be replaced without cost to you within that period, provided the equipment does not show evidence of impact, sand or liquid damage, mishandling, tampering, battery or chemical corrosion, operation contrary to operating instructions, or modification by an unauthorized repair shop.

Ricoh is not interested to know if you used a weather sealed lens or not, if there is evidence of liquid damage, the warranty is voided. I guess they do it on an individual basis, but the warranty conditions allow them to cancel the warranty in case of water ingress. They are not even interested to know whether water entered the camera through lens mount (non WR lens) or through defective seals.

If the liquid entered the camera, then we are not talking only about little humidity on an LCD, right?

It points to the fact that camera was exposed to a high pressure water impact. For example, it was submerged in the sea, river or lake, washed under high-pressure hose, etc.

Or that a camera was used with a non-WR lens in conditions that even a modest exposure to liquid would damage the innards.

Or it was handled with little care in adverse weather: lenses mounted / unmounted, battery door / card slot opened and closed in highly humid weather, etc. even with WR-designated lenses.

A properly handled and sealed camera with a WR lens on it should withstand typical use described in the description of the lenses, and an impact, corrosion, liquid damage, etc. points to something other than that.

That is why I have pointed to fact that there are two different types of weather-sealed lenses. There also liquids other than water, which may harm the equipment more severely. Etc.

The level of damage is easy to discern, and a service person may clearly see what kind of water damage caused the malfunction.

If Pentax branded cameras are proudly advertised as weather-resistant with certain lenses, and that emphasised as their particular point of sale, nullifying every warranty claim would be perceived as false advertising. Because the user has the right to see if the advertising is true as it claims, because on those same presumptions the camera was purchased in the first place. Therefore each assessment of the claim must be taken on individual basis.

I have only stated a few recommended tips for users to make sure they trial the camera more informed and more carefully than they usually do.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow