Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-08-2019, 03:38 AM - 1 Like   #16
Pentaxian
angerdan's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,631
I do recommend to check existing threads about this topic, they will answer more than all questions:
About those WR body weather seals...User responsibility and best practice - PentaxForums.com
LensRentals.com - Plastic Mounts, WR and Professional Grade II - PentaxForums.com

05-08-2019, 03:44 AM   #17
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
BruceBanner's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,404
Original Poster
I find it so bizarre that it's the zooms that seem to get so much WR/AW treatment, whilst only 3 primes have WR/AW now? (DFA100, 55* and DFA50). I feel it's such a missed opportunity by Pentax to not get the DA 15, 21, 40 and 70 to not have WR treatment. I mean... how much bulk would it really add (i.e. I think they could handle a little more size without it taking away from their small size benefit) and think of all the additional wet shots we could be taking with those primes!
05-08-2019, 03:48 AM - 3 Likes   #18
Seeker of Knowledge
Loyal Site Supporter
aslyfox's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Topeka, Kansas
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 24,563
QuoteOriginally posted by BruceBanner Quote
. . . think of all the additional wet shots we could be taking with those primes!
I think you have to remember the years that photographers managed to take great photos with no more weather protection than basically a bag type cover

[ which are still readily available if you want to buy one ]

Last edited by aslyfox; 05-08-2019 at 03:56 AM.
05-08-2019, 03:53 AM   #19
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
For obvious reasons camera manufactures can only put IPX ratings on fixed lens cameras.
When dust particles large as golf balls can enter the lens mount, it will not be meaningful to put IPX ratings on ILC and lenses.
No, that's a cop out, Fogel, you just specify the rating is for that body with a selected lens.

All standards have specified conditions and assumptions, take fuel economy of cars or battery lives for cameras, as examples, it doesn't stop standards being drafted, implemented, and used by decision makers.

05-08-2019, 04:05 AM - 1 Like   #20
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sandy Hancock's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Adelaide Hills, South Australia
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,254
QuoteOriginally posted by BruceBanner Quote
I find it so bizarre that it's the zooms that seem to get so much WR/AW treatment, whilst only 3 primes have WR/AW now? (DFA100, 55* and DFA50). I feel it's such a missed opportunity by Pentax to not get the DA 15, 21, 40 and 70 to not have WR treatment. I mean... how much bulk would it really add (i.e. I think they could handle a little more size without it taking away from their small size benefit) and think of all the additional wet shots we could be taking with those primes!
It's not bizarre at all. If you have a weather sealed lens/camera combination, the last thing you want to do in the field is swap lenses to change the angle of view. A zoom makes much more sense.

Mind you, I'm all for improving the range of weather sealed primes. Bring on the DFA*85, 35, and hopefully 24 in the not-too-distant future!
05-08-2019, 04:22 AM   #21
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,787
QuoteOriginally posted by BruceBanner Quote
I find it so bizarre that it's the zooms that seem to get so much WR/AW treatment, whilst only 3 primes have WR/AW now? (DFA100, 55* and DFA50). I feel it's such a missed opportunity by Pentax to not get the DA 15, 21, 40 and 70 to not have WR treatment. I mean... how much bulk would it really add (i.e. I think they could handle a little more size without it taking away from their small size benefit) and think of all the additional wet shots we could be taking with those primes!
I concur. Sure, you're not going to be able to switch out your primes often in a downpour. But Pentax' (implied?) marketing is "Look at all these tiny little jewels of lenses that go with a small weather-sealed body like the KP. Perfect for carrying around all day on a hike." But none of those little jewels are WR or AW, so just don't go out if it might rain. Or you're too near the beach. Or when it's sandy or dusty. Or... maybe just stay inside to be safe, so they're great for long walks through malls or Zeppelin hangers or domed stadiums.

I just bought a 21mm limited, and it seems very good. But if it had been weather-sealed that could have been a lens that stays glued to the body for travel.
05-08-2019, 05:27 AM   #22
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,062
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
No, that's a cop out, Fogel, you just specify the rating is for that body with a selected lens.

All standards have specified conditions and assumptions, take fuel economy of cars or battery lives for cameras, as examples, it doesn't stop standards being drafted, implemented, and used by decision makers.
Then removing the lens from the camera would void the warranty.

If IPX rating is put on cameras and lenses they must withstand the testing as separate products.
You can't put IPX rating on a product with the condition that it is used together with another product. Then you can say that all products have highest possible IPX rating, you just need to put them is a dust/water tight box.
IP Code - Wikipedia

05-08-2019, 07:59 AM   #23
Pentaxian
Fogel70's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,062
Olympus actually have stated IPX rating on some of their ILC. But they could only specify it as "better than IPX1", even on a camera like OM-D E-M1X.
IPX1 is the lowest possible rating you can put on a product (except not protected at all). No rating against dust and lowest protection against water.

"IPX1 Dripping water
Dripping water (vertically falling drops) shall have no harmful effect. Test duration: 10 minutes, equivalent to 1 mm rainfall per minute."


With best sealed lenses on Olympus cameras the sealing is much better than that, so it is just not very meaningful to specify the IPX rating on this type of product.
05-08-2019, 08:33 AM - 1 Like   #24
Pentaxian
angerdan's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,631
QuoteOriginally posted by BruceBanner Quote
only 3 primes have WR/AW now? (DFA100, 55* and DFA50)
That's not true. DA 200, 300, and 560mm have WR/AW.
Weather Sealed Prime Lenses | PentaxForums.com
05-08-2019, 09:32 AM   #25
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,697
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
I don't know about official, but the AW lenses I have owned (all of the DA* and DFA* lenses, plus the DFA 150-450) just feel like they are built to far greater tolerances than any of my WR lenses (.....
I really hope that you don't actually mean "greater" tolerances because that means wider tolerance limits!! You should have said "tighter" tolerances!
05-08-2019, 10:27 AM - 1 Like   #26
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Alex645's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: Kaneohe, HI
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,526
QuoteOriginally posted by BruceBanner Quote
I find it so bizarre that it's the zooms that seem to get so much WR/AW treatment, whilst only 3 primes have WR/AW now? (DFA100, 55* and DFA50).
QuoteOriginally posted by aslyfox Quote
I think you have to remember the years that photographers managed to take great photos with no more weather protection than basically a bag type cover
QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
It's not bizarre at all. If you have a weather sealed lens/camera combination, the last thing you want to do in the field is swap lenses to change the angle of view. A zoom makes much more sense.
QuoteOriginally posted by angerdan Quote
That's not true. DA 200, 300, and 560mm have WR/AW.
Weather Sealed Prime Lenses | PentaxForums.com
All good points here. One other wrinkle to consider is that primes are inherently less prone to having water or dust entering the lens due to less moving parts/simpler design. The key part for the prime is having that silicone o-ring gasket on the rear lens mount.

But even without that, it is easy enough to jury-rig an inverted plastic bag with a hole for the front of the lens to poke thru and another for the finder. A filter and a lens hood also add more protection in the worst conditions.
05-08-2019, 11:16 AM   #27
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 4,186
QuoteOriginally posted by aslyfox Quote
I think you have to remember the years that photographers managed to take great photos with no more weather protection than basically a bag type cover

[ which are still readily available if you want to buy one ]
Or make one, you know, out of a bag

-Eric
05-08-2019, 04:54 PM   #28
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote

If IPX rating is put on cameras and lenses they must withstand the testing as separate products.
You can't put IPX rating on a product with the condition that it is used together with another product.
?

But this already happens with Pentax ratings.

Each camera or lens is rated WR or AW, in itself - by your logic they should never have done that.

There is nothing stopping them getting certification for the K-1, as a fictional example, as IPX-3 when used in conjunction with an IPX-3 lens, say, the DFA*50.

(Edit: And I do like Bruce's suggestion that for any combination, you just use the lower of the ratings. We already informally do this. WR body plus non WR lens equals non WR combination)

Last edited by clackers; 05-08-2019 at 07:24 PM.
05-08-2019, 07:09 PM   #29
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
BruceBanner's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,404
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by aslyfox Quote
I think you have to remember the years that photographers managed to take great photos with no more weather protection than basically a bag type cover

[ which are still readily available if you want to buy one ]
Trudat. But you know.. don't you find it a missed opportunity to being manufacturing WR cameras but skipping out on so many teeny tiny primes that surely wouldn't overly suffer in compactness with a wee bit of WRing? Then we can do away with the bag altogether!

QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
No, that's a cop out, Fogel, you just specify the rating is for that body with a selected lens.

All standards have specified conditions and assumptions, take fuel economy of cars or battery lives for cameras, as examples, it doesn't stop standards being drafted, implemented, and used by decision makers.
Yeah, I don't get how giving a product a rating somehow opens them liable to warranty. I mean... someone can just lie saying an IPX rated phone was just in the rain a little when really fell down the toilet.

If we had rear lens caps that gave the same kinda seal as what the lens would have on the body, then we could submit the lens to some water tolerance tests and then get an idea of where we're at. Sensible shooters (the majority of us) just would like to know where we really stand.

QuoteOriginally posted by Sandy Hancock Quote
It's not bizarre at all. If you have a weather sealed lens/camera combination, the last thing you want to do in the field is swap lenses to change the angle of view. A zoom makes much more sense.

Mind you, I'm all for improving the range of weather sealed primes. Bring on the DFA*85, 35, and hopefully 24 in the not-too-distant future!
Yeah I thought about this after I posted it, indeed a zoom makes sense. Last time I did some rain shooting I was switching lenses under an umbrella fastened to my tripod, it's not ideal. But you know... some people do kinda leave the house with just one prime, if it's a versatile lens (such as the HD DA 35/2.8 Macro) then that's just screaming for some WR treatment. In fact I'm selling mine purely because it is not WR otherwise I'd keep it. It's possibly the best walkaround prime I've had the pleasure to use thus far (it's just that I don't do that kinda stuff much where I leave the house with just one camera and lens).

QuoteOriginally posted by ThorSanchez Quote
I concur. Sure, you're not going to be able to switch out your primes often in a downpour. But Pentax' (implied?) marketing is "Look at all these tiny little jewels of lenses that go with a small weather-sealed body like the KP. Perfect for carrying around all day on a hike." But none of those little jewels are WR or AW, so just don't go out if it might rain. Or you're too near the beach. Or when it's sandy or dusty. Or... maybe just stay inside to be safe, so they're great for long walks through malls or Zeppelin hangers or domed stadiums.

I just bought a 21mm limited, and it seems very good. But if it had been weather-sealed that could have been a lens that stays glued to the body for travel.
Yep. I had the HD DA 15 and 21 and the 35 Macro but have sold them all to be replaced with the HD DA 20-40 purely because of WR. The bag argument just doesn't wash that well with me, I just want to grab my camera and go out in the rain without the prep work and all that stuff.

QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
Then removing the lens from the camera would void the warranty.

If IPX rating is put on cameras and lenses they must withstand the testing as separate products.
You can't put IPX rating on a product with the condition that it is used together with another product. Then you can say that all products have highest possible IPX rating, you just need to put them is a dust/water tight box.
IP Code - Wikipedia
QuoteOriginally posted by Fogel70 Quote
Olympus actually have stated IPX rating on some of their ILC. But they could only specify it as "better than IPX1", even on a camera like OM-D E-M1X.
IPX1 is the lowest possible rating you can put on a product (except not protected at all). No rating against dust and lowest protection against water.

"IPX1 Dripping water
Dripping water (vertically falling drops) shall have no harmful effect. Test duration: 10 minutes, equivalent to 1 mm rainfall per minute."


With best sealed lenses on Olympus cameras the sealing is much better than that, so it is just not very meaningful to specify the IPX rating on this type of product.
I just don't understand how you can't get a WR body cap for the camera, put it through its paces, then do the same with a lens (with a WR rear cap), and then rate both products and then when connected use the weakest IPX rating (whatever that element might be) as a sensible guideline.

Like from a warranty issue surely people bending the truth anyway, "oh I only took it out in a light bit of rain for 5mins" when really they dropped it in the bath. I mean can't a company give a rating but then stipulate that due to the nature of ICL that warranty issues surrounding water damage cannot be actioned on and that the IPX rating is only a guideline for sensible safe use? I just don't get the connection between offering a rating to let the user know exactly where they stand on a product vs warranty issues.

QuoteOriginally posted by angerdan Quote
That's not true. DA 200, 300, and 560mm have WR/AW.
Weather Sealed Prime Lenses | PentaxForums.com
Ah yes, thanks. I wasn't looking past 100mm in my recent searches. I guess those wildlife prime users get looked after a bit, which makes sense.

QuoteOriginally posted by Alex645 Quote
All good points here. One other wrinkle to consider is that primes are inherently less prone to having water or dust entering the lens due to less moving parts/simpler design. The key part for the prime is having that silicone o-ring gasket on the rear lens mount.

But even without that, it is easy enough to jury-rig an inverted plastic bag with a hole for the front of the lens to poke thru and another for the finder. A filter and a lens hood also add more protection in the worst conditions.
Yeah I might ask my plumber mate for some advice with my FA Ltd' primes. I wonder if there can be a kinda 'O' ring that could be pushed to seal the join between the lens and camera body, and then do the beer cosy trick around the main body (and use a different longer hood) to give some kinda additional protection. Not the kind that lets you shoot in decent rain, but the kind that wouldn't panic you for some light shower shots (especially if inbetween shots you're not exposing the camera but stowing away).

I guess what I'm saying is there's shooting in rain and then there's shooting in rain. I have a HD DA 20-40 en-route but I am really a little unsure of how far to push it's WR capabilities. Light showers fine, mist fog, fine, medium rain ok, downpour? No I'm guessing.
05-08-2019, 07:24 PM   #30
Moderator
Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
MarkJerling's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wairarapa, New Zealand
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,391
QuoteOriginally posted by BruceBanner Quote
I guess what I'm saying is there's shooting in rain and then there's shooting in rain. I have a HD DA 20-40 en-route but I am really a little unsure of how far to push it's WR capabilities. Light showers fine, mist fog, fine, medium rain ok, downpour? No I'm guessing.
My K5 worked perfectly fine in all manner of weather. Even heavy rain. I've not been as adventurous with the K-1II yet, and I doubt I will.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
k-mount, pentax lens, slr lens, vs, wr
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LowePro ProTactic 350 AW vs 450 AW? CoolMan8 Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 16 04-03-2019 01:10 AM
K-5 vs MZ-S vs LX vs PZ-1p vs ist*D vs K10D vs K20D vs K-7 vs....... Steelski Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 2 06-28-2017 04:59 PM
Enthusiast vs Prosumer vs Semi Pro vs Pro vs APSC vs Full Frame mickyd Pentax DSLR Discussion 10 11-12-2013 07:14 PM
18-55 WR vs Sigma 18-50. WR vs IQ ? adr1an Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 9 07-30-2011 12:43 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:42 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top