>Careful about interpreting these standard definitions for waterproofness. They >are used in watches as well and have a totally different meaning when >interpreted from a technicians point of view. > >When they quote that standard and a depth of one meter they are really talking >about the pressure equivalent to a depth of one meter of *unmoving water*. So...this makes me wonder about my new Pentax WR105 camera. It's stated depth is one meter, and I've rolled with it tucked inside my PFD. Should I be worried? Has anyone ever had a WR105/WR90 fail after a roll? Shawn >When buying a watch I was told to go for a least 30 meters to be save when >swimming on the surface. Hmmm...I always wondered about the depth on watches. I've never owned a "waterproof" watch that was for less than 30 meters. Of course, I've never been below 3 meters--makes my ears/sinuses hurt too much! Shawn -- Shawn W. Baker 0 46°53'N © 2000 ____©/______ 114°06'W ~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^\ ,/ /~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ baker_at_montana.com 0 http://www.geocities.com/shawnkayak/ *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Shawn wrote: [[So...this makes me wonder about my new Pentax WR105 camera. It's stated depth is one meter, and I've rolled with it tucked inside my PFD. Should I be worried? Has anyone ever had a WR105/WR90 fail after a roll?]] I bought a WR105 several months ago but never found a reference to 1 meter depth. I have gotten mine pretty wet swimming under some waterfalls in Puerto Rico and it still works fine. If I can find a reference to it being good to 1 meter, then I will be more inclined to wear the camera when practicing bracing and rolling. I currently reverve that treatment for my Minolta Weathermatic which has gone done to 25 feet and is still working. sid *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
>So...this makes me wonder about my new Pentax WR105 camera. It's stated >depth is one meter, and I've rolled with it tucked inside my PFD. >Should I be worried? Has anyone ever had a WR105/WR90 fail after a >roll? > No, but once I had my WR90 in an ammo can that I didn't know leaked, and it spent a good 16 hours totally submersed..... No problems whatever. (There was a TV commercial wherein a WR90 was covered with sand and muck from the beach. The owner just tossed it in the dishwasher and turned it on.....) Joe P. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
> I bought my WR90 used from an individual who said he only used it once...on a Grand Canyon raft trip, he had just replaced the battery, etc, etc... Got it for a good price too, but when I opened it to insert the first roll of film I found very small grains of sand coating the gasket seals, and some inside. I suspect that he was just careless... Maybe opened it up in a windy space and didn't look at the seals afterward. It's that sort of thing that could allow water to enter. The manual explicitly mentions this. You did the right thing by getting it cleaned, just in case... JP *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
"Shawn W. Baker" wrote: > >When they quote that standard and a depth of one meter they are really talking > >about the pressure equivalent to a depth of one meter of *unmoving water*. > > So...this makes me wonder about my new Pentax WR105 camera. It's stated > depth is one meter, and I've rolled with it tucked inside my PFD. > Should I be worried? Has anyone ever had a WR105/WR90 fail after a > roll? A friend was a tech rep for Pentax, and he said the WR 90 was actually good for deeper than 1 meter. When they came back for reconditioning/warranty claims, they usually tested them to something like 3 meters. I suspect the 1 meter rating is conservative. I've had mine deeper than 1 meter and never noticed any water inside. OTOH, my Minolta Weathermatic somehow leaked and the battery fried it when salt water got inside. I usually leave the WR 90 inside the cockpit and it often slides around in a little bilge water. Just keeps on ticking. That dishwasher bit is bogus -- not rated for a hose-off. -- Dave Kruger Astoria, OR *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Those of you on Paddlewise that are familiar with my occasional essays about my kayaking experiences will recognize the name of Lake Hudson. In a state with as many lakes as Michigan, maybe it's not the nicest, but it's wild, free from jetskis, and close to home. It's where I paddle most often. So, as paddlers, you will probably share with me my anger at finding out that: -- two months ago, a local farmer blithly dumped 400,000 gallons of liquid cow manure into the stream that feeds the lake; -- the so-called Michigan Department of Environmental Quality totally screwed up their investigation of the matter, the management of the crisis, and now plans no enforcement or punitive action against the farmer; -- and that the DEQ did their best to cover up the incident, rather than making the health hazard public. It was more than a month before the local health department was notified. The health department hasn't done that well, either. They have been stonewalling me on the reports on coliform bacteria counts from tests taken since the manure got into the lake. Worse, they've been stonewalling the manager of the state park that surrounds the lake. I happen to edit the local newspaper, and they've got me mad. If I don't get some results right quick, I'm going to have independant tests done and should have a nice story that I really wish I didn't have. I did get an under-the-table, unpublishable report today that bacteria counts have now been reduced to a safe level (six inches of rain in the past three weeks helping), but that they were holding off on the report until they were sure it was safe. That sure makes a nice cover-up that doesn't do much for the public health of those of us that have been, without a word of warning, fishing, kayaking, and even swimming out there since the manure hit the lake. Lovely state, Michigan, with it's "right to farm" laws. A local car dealer commented to me today, "I could wind up doing hard time in this state if I spill a gallon of anti-freeze, but some farmer can dump 400,000 gallons of manure into the lake and not even get a slap on the wrist." There's probably not much anyone on Paddlewise can do -- except listen to me venting about it, and it's a fight that I'll have to deal with locally. The fat guy is hot, and this ain't over with yet. But, I have learned one thing -- we slide along, figure that someone else is dealing with the problem, and it doesn't happen. -- Wes -- Who would really rather be writing about the kayak demo night he attended, and who maybe will get around to it sooner or later. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Wes, I rarely publicly admit that I'm a lawyer, but alas, I am. For years, I have been wondering about the use of various common law causes of action in environmental cases. I'm not an environmental lawyer, just a regular corporate lawyer. And I wouldn't be surprised if the environmental groups (like NRDC) have already explored this. (I do know that groups like NRDC have established their standing under federal environmental laws to challenge private conduct.) But I would bet if you filed a private lawsuit alleging "public nuisance" (a private cause of action in all states, I believe), there wouldn't be anyone smart enough to figure out whether it should or shouldn't be allowed to proceed. That usually means you win, at least on the first round. I'd be happy to offer some informal advice or suggestions. I'm not admitted in Michigan (just in NY, and in lots of federal districts around the US), so I can't "officially" give legal advice under Michigan law, but I'm just as fed up with it as you are. My home state of North Carolina has the same "pro farmer" problem. And my adopted state of Maine has a similar range of problems, with the strong support of lobstermen and fishermen (whom I respect greatly, but not all of whom are sufficient aware of environmental problems) sometimes overshadowing other, more important issues. Drop me a note if you want to talk about it. Mark Lane *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
You're not alone in your outrage, Wes. I think that once you publicize the problem, groups like the Sierra Club and National Audubon Society and ordinary citizens will demand a restructuring of and/or some accountability from the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Darrell Lee Alameda, CA snorkler_at_juno.com *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
Rolled with my new Pentax WR 105 last weekend, once while it was held to the deck under bungies, and once tucked into my pfd. The camera continued to work and the film was undamaged (let's not discuss the quality of the photography). I recall some discussion awhile ago in which people verified that the Pentax seems to hold up well under normal paddling conditions. Just don't turn it on/off, or use the zoom, while underwater. Bob >Shawn wrote: > >[[So...this makes me wonder about my new Pentax WR105 camera. It's stated >depth is one meter, and I've rolled with it tucked inside my PFD. >Should I be worried? Has anyone ever had a WR105/WR90 fail after a >roll?]] > >I bought a WR105 several months ago but never found a reference to 1 meter >depth. I have gotten mine pretty wet swimming under some waterfalls in >Puerto Rico and it still works fine. If I can find a reference to it being >good to 1 meter, then I will be more inclined to wear the camera when >practicing bracing and rolling. I currently reverve that treatment for my >Minolta Weathermatic which has gone done to 25 feet and is still working. *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
> So...this makes me wonder about my new Pentax WR105 camera. It's stated > depth is one meter, and I've rolled with it tucked inside my PFD. > Should I be worried? Has anyone ever had a WR105/WR90 fail after a > roll? The manual of my Pentax explicitely mentions careful rinsing under *slow running tap* after exposure to salt water. Same story, dynamic pressure might penetrate the seal. That's not to say it will, by why take chances? Rolling a camera tucked into your PFD is yet another issue, because the cover of the PFD might protect the camera from fast moving water hitting the seals. But I wouldn't count on that because it might also cause pressure changes (when the camera is in a zipped pocket and the size of that pocket varies because you move in you PFD) that might force water into the camera. Btw: I had my Pentax in a Nylon Deck Bag that was soaked from paddle spray and I found some fogging of the lense the first few days. I still don't know how that happended, but it went away after a few days. Regards Ferdinand ------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 0 Ferdinand Soethe o/ o__/ Wollkaemmerei 8 -----</-----[\/------ D-30519 Hannover ´~~~~~~`----/-------/------´~~~~~~~~~` ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0~~~~~~~0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ph +49-511-9845437 mobile +49-170-6362720 email f.soethe_at_apc.de ------------------------------------------------------------------- *************************************************************************** PaddleWise Paddling Mailing List - All postings copyright the author and not to be reproduced outside PaddleWise without author's permission Submissions: paddlewise_at_lists.intelenet.net Subscriptions: paddlewise-request_at_lists.intelenet.net Website: http://www.paddlewise.net/ ***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thu Aug 21 2025 - 16:33:13 PDT