[Reportage]

It does seem my k20d water test seems to have inspired people to do the same.

[Dr_who]

Water resistant or even water proof cameras are the norm now, its great teh K30 has it. But I'm not suprised by it either, and Pentax has had it in a few models now and I wouldn't expect the K30 to be any worse at sealing from water then the K5.

[Docrwm]

Water resistant or even water proof cameras are the norm now, its great teh K30 has it. But I'm not suprised by it either, and Pentax has had it in a few models now and I wouldn't expect the K30 to be any worse at sealing from water then the K5.

The norm for Pentax perhaps, but take a look at the Entry and Mid level offerings from Nikon and Canon. When I was last in Florida I reported on a rained out Atlas launch at NASA where everyone ran for cover except one working journalist with a high-end Nikon (if memory serves) and I. He helpfully tried to coax me under cover to protect my camera. He was politely astonished when I informed him that my K-5 was not FF but was WR (as was my 18-135). So, from both looking online at reviews and specs, and from field experience with 40-60 dSLRs running for cover with a moderate rainstorm, I can say that it is far from a common feature today.

[stanislav]

Well I didn't take my K-7 to shower, but I was out in a rather heavy rain several times. Thus far there is no problem with camera. The only "bad" thing is that among some 30+ lenses the only weather sealed is DA 18-55 WR thus limiting the focal range in a matter. Maybe some day I'll get 18-135 which should give some more reach and a bit better IQ.

[MrCynical]

Well I didn't take my K-7 to shower, but I was out in a rather heavy rain several times. Thus far there is no problem with camera. The only "bad" thing is that among some 30+ lenses the only weather sealed is DA 18-55 WR thus limiting the focal range in a matter. Maybe some day I'll get 18-135 which should give some more reach and a bit better IQ.

The 18-135 has (obviously) a much more useful range than the 18-55, but its image quality is worse. Its border image quality above 50mm was so bad that Photozone thought they had received a bad copy of the lens and sent it back. Pentax said it was fine:

Pentax SMC-DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] WR - Review / Lens Test - Analysis

Now obviously the 18-55 can't produce any images above 55mm, so saying the 18-135 "isn't as good" is perhaps a tad unfair. But there's always the 50-200WR.

[Docrwm]

The 18-135 has (obviously) a much more useful range than the 18-55, but its image quality is worse. Its border image quality above 50mm was so bad that Photozone thought they had received a bad copy of the lens and sent it back. Pentax said it was fine:

Pentax SMC-DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] WR - Review / Lens Test - Analysis

Now obviously the 18-55 can't produce any images above 55mm, so saying the 18-135 "isn't as good" is perhaps a tad unfair. But there's always the 50-200WR.

Just not my experience with the lens at all nor that of many members here. Please see the 18-135 review conducted here at PF also for additional information.

[Pheo]

The 18-135 has (obviously) a much more useful range than the 18-55, but its image quality is worse. Its border image quality above 50mm was so bad that Photozone thought they had received a bad copy of the lens and sent it back. Pentax said it was fine:

Pentax SMC-DA 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 ED AL [IF] WR - Review / Lens Test - Analysis

Now obviously the 18-55 can't produce any images above 55mm, so saying the 18-135 "isn't as good" is perhaps a tad unfair. But there's always the 50-200WR.

18-135mm performance seems fine for me, especially in context of its length vs width, and price. There are always going to be some compromises, but if I've got this lens on then likely I'm in a situation that dictates it, and I'm still going to get good results