Originally posted by Miserere Think about it, when was the last time you shot in the rain?
PS: Yes, I know the shoot-at-the-beach crowd will boo me for not wanting weather sealing, but beach crowds are a minority.
Why would you assume that because you don't shoot in wet or potentially wet or dusty situations, others don't as well?
I don't know about the "beach crowd" and how many of them there are, but how about those of us who live in the mountains? Lots of rain and heavy morning dew there. Vegetation in the mountains, once wet, stays wet for a long time. Care to try the Gulf Islands or Alaska or the Pacific Coast? There's a lot of places where, if you put your camera away when it's wet, you won't spend a lot of time taking pictures. And how about those of us who are active and kayak, flyfish, etc - any activity around water? Then there's the prairies and other places where the wind and wind blown dust is just a fact of life. Skiing/mountaineering when it is snowing or snow is blowing around?
Bottom line. Lots of photographers find weather sealing to be a real bonus, given the environment we practice photography in. And the build of the K10d for what it cost was one of the main reasons I went with it instead of a Nikon D80 which I also tried and found to be a very nice camera.
How that translates into sales of camera bodies and lenses in the marketing arena, I have no idea. But tuff stuff certainly gets my attention - I've damaged too much gear over the years to think otherwise. I looked at it as the price of carrying camera gear in those environments to get the photographs I did, but all things considered I'd rather have had gear that could take it and survive.
Originally posted by Wheatfield I've used some Stigma lenses in the past, I didn't like the way they felt, I didn't like the colour rendition, I didn't thing they rendered images as nicely as Pentax glass, I found the lack of flare control to be absurdly bad, and overall, I didn't think they were as well built.
Frankly, I am surprised that there are so many third party glass users on what is supposed to be a Pentax forum, since the best reason to shoot Pentax is the lenses, and if you aren't going to use Pentax glass, it really doesn't matter whose body you shoot with, and there are a lot of cameras out there that are way better performing than anything Pentax has on the market, albeit at a somewhat higher cost.
Hmmmm... and yet you said this at almost the same time elsewhere:
Originally posted by Wheatfield I really think people spend way too much time obsessing over good lenses vs. bad lenses. I get a kick out of the whole IQ thing that gets batted around here like as if it means something.
Now if we do spend too much time obsessing over good lenses vs. bad lenses, how can sticking with Pentax glass be such an important issue - is Canon, Nikon, Zeiss, etc really that bad that it is worth obsessing over and sticking with Pentax?
To be more on topic... hands up all you Sigma 17-70 owners who are disappointed with your copy of this lens, think it produces lousy images, etc? Funnily enough, I think most Sigma 17-70 owners are going to be like me - very pleased with the results they get from this lens.
The issue of Sigma in general is worth it's own discussion I suppose, although it is also true that Pentax is not exactly unknown for having it's own QC/QA problems on a fairly regular basis... DA* 16-50mm, anyone?
The bottom line is that the Pentax 17-70's main competition is going to come from the Sigma 17-70 - a lens that has been very well accepted indeed, and not just within the Pentax community. If there is any doubt of that, all you need to do is a search of these forums and read the comments from people here that use this lens. If this new Pentax lens doesn't offer significantly better image quality for the street price or equal performance for approximately the same price - or the cachet of having "Pentax" instead of "Sigma" enscribed on the lens for approximately the same price - then Sigma is probably going to continue selling Pentax users a lot of 17-70 lenses. With the advantage of a quasi-macro function that the Pentax apparently lacks, no less. Macro purists might look down on this, but I have found the Sigma's "macro" ability to be a great feature of this lens.
I can see why you might feel surprised that Pentax users would happily use third-party glass when it suits their needs - most of us obviously don't have the same approach to photography that you do, so using third party glass that suits our needs and IQ standards is not an issue. Perhaps we do not obsess over the brand name written on the lens, but concentrate more on other things. We appear to be coming from two different worlds here.
I also certainly don't agree with you that the only reason to shoot with a Pentax is Pentax glass. Canon, Nikon, et al and for that matter "third party" lens manufacturers also make pretty good glass. Would sticking to Pentax glass rather than glass in the same class from Canon or Nikon actually make the overwhelming majority of us better photographers? I doubt it.
"
if you aren't going to use Pentax glass, it really doesn't matter whose body you shoot with"? Really!
Where do I get a Canon or Nikon with the same build quality and environmental sealing at the same price as a K10d, for example? I'd rather save the money on a Pentax body - and then spend it on glass, thanks.
What if I prefer the layout of the controls on the Pentax body better than I like those of the Nikons, Canons, et al? And I do, by the way... although I am also sure I wouldn't cry too many tears over this if my only options were Nikons and Canons.
And where, in the Nikon/Canon world, do I get in-body image stabilization at the same price I get it for in my K10d? If I didn't care about image stabilization or preferred it built into the lens, then perhaps this isn't an issue - but it certainly is for me. What is the average price jump that putting image stabilization into a lens brings? Enough that over several lenses it equals the cost of another lens or buying higher quality glass to begin with?
I think the short story is, "who cares about the body" is like weatherproofing/ruggedness, one man's poison is another man's meat. While for people like yourself it is specifically about Pentax glass with the body being if anything slightly inferior to other choices, for many other Pentax users there are many and good reasons for using both third party glass at times AND specifically choosing Pentax over values relating to the Pentax body.
When you think about it, many fields of photography are incredibly opposite to each other in the setting and the equipment used. The photographer that shoots primarily in a studio using lighting equipment, versus the one who shoots on a ten day backpacking trip through the Rockies in all types of weather where space and weight are very much a factor is just one example of that. I've never shot in a studio in my life - but I have shot on countless backpacking trips and military operations where I had to decide what I was going to leave out of my pack in exchange for the room to carry an extra lens or (gasp) a flash.
The neat thing - which photographers using all brands benefit from - is that never before have we had such a rich choice of superb equipment placed in front of us. And whether for any individual it's all about the glass, or the body, or what kind of focusing drive the lens has, we have a banquet of choices in front of us these days.
As for me... I'm waiting to see if the new Pentax 17-70 will show me something that will bring me to put my Sigma up for sale so I can move to Pentax's version of this zoom.