A Case of Burnt K10D RTF (Built-in Flash)

A new K10D user complained about his K10D refused to work with RTF popped up after he had fired a few strobes of AF assistance flashes:-

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1036&message=20981073&changemode=1

Actually, his K10D RTF was found burnt and he was upset.

On the other hand, it has never been heard about reports of burnt RTFs with previous Pentax *ist D series DSLRs before, except that the users who reported a burnt and broken RTF as a result of using non-regulated Rechargeable CR-V3 batteries which are of excessive higher voltage than the *ist Dx design that could tolerate. Those RCR-V3 batteries are actually made of Li-ion materials and if they are not regulated, their voltage would be at 3.7V each. So, a pair of which will add up to an excessive voltage of 7.4V, which is 23% more than the intended allowed level, i.e., 6V nominal.

Indeed, Pentax "banned" the use of any RCR-V3 battery because of the above and they recommend no user should use any RCR-V3 in their DSLRs:-

http://www.digital.pentax.co.jp/en/35mm/ist-ds/faq.html#04_01

Unfortunately, they "ban" all types of RCR-V3 batteries including some of those regulated types which are indeed performing very well in their cameras.

Okay, let's compare the two different "burnt RTF" incidents, the symptoms are indeed quite similar..

Now that the K10D is the first Pentax DSLR (and SLR as well) which adopts a Li-ion battery, at 7.4V. If the cause of the burnt K10D RTF is to be explained. It should be either one of the following two possibilities:-

1. His K10D has some in-born defects and his unit is just "fortunate" enough to get through Pentax factory's QA system and the QC process, and utlimately arrived in the hands of that unfortunate user; Or,

2. The K10D RTF and/or associate circuitry are not fully proven enough to handle the considerable higher voltage and current from the new (more powerful) battery source. Do note that all electronics components do have a certain degree of errors in values when they are manufactured (which should be within the tolerance of their design specifications). Of course, if more reliable and more accurate (with lower % of errors) electronic components are used, the costs required will be of higher. Nevertheless, just in case if the margin of a circuit design is set too low and marginal, evils might happen.

Anyway, time will tell.. Let's see if there will be more similar happenings (provided that the victims will report and I do think they should report too if encountered) OR this is just an isolated case, that is, there is in general no significant QC loophole as per Case 1.

P.S. Now that I have re-posted all my three messages which the site owner of the Steve's Forum is accusing me of "always" "stirring up troubles" (troubles? what "troubles"??) and must "put me to death" at their premises. What do you think about my these *reports* and *opinions*?
What're wrong with them? And, how about the "Freedom of Speech" (FoS)? Which place(s) on Earth we should have the FoS? (But there is virtually none at these private and commercial sites if they wish to apply *their* "control", frankly speaking.)

Just another very similar but yet unfortunate case, I was banned by Phil Askey at Dpreview.com's Pentax SLR Forum just a few days after I shared about my letter to the Pentax CEO, of which the full letter can be found in the "Links" section of this Blog.