By fmylife. - 29/11/2010 18:02 - Canada
Add a comment - Reply to : #
yea not really. the little brother sounds nasty..I know little kids don't really know about germs but sticking your hand in a toilet and flushing it over and over sounds disgusting. anyway OP, I'm gonna go with FYL even though the camera was obviously shit since it stopped working.
Well, it is said that the toilet is cleaner than... Nevermind, I forgot what the other thing is. But it does make sense. People always think toilets are so nasty, because of the urine and stuff, which leads to them cleaning it more often... It's not that bad, actually. Oh well, it's still nasty.
Then you should be able to contact the company and tell them it wasn't water proof..
No. When you purchase something like that that they say is "waterproof", they mean if it falls (a very short distance) into a very shallow puddle and you take it out quickly, there SHOULD be no problems with it. Nothing of that nature is ever very waterproof on it's own. If you want it to be truly waterproof, you need one of those clear casings, that are actually made to be underwater. So if OP tries to claim that it wasn't waterproof and tells them what happened, they will laugh and hang up. Instead, you should strangle your brother, and say that you're testing his ability to breathe.
@2 no, that camera is waterproof. The reason it broken is because the 6 yr old testing it in the toilet, the flushing put the camera in motion that bat around the toilet. The camera isn't shock proof, normal water resistant have a limit on how deep it can go. The deeper it is under water, the more pressure there will be on the camera. But this just my theory, maybe it was false advertising. Just my 2 cent. p.s if my theory are correct, manufacture will put warning: water resistant camera "warning, do not flush the camera" XD
I would think that a good camera would live up to a promise like that, particularly if it was made for underwater shooting. This makes me think that your camera was a piece of shit anyway.