[PenPusher]

Well now I didn't expect so much interest as this has generated, so many thanks for all your opinions and information.

I am the only Pentax user in our club, don't get excited its only around 20 members, mostly Canon users and one or two Nikon, I suspect the weight of Canon advertising has blotted out other makes, I write an occasional newsletter and this was one of the subjects that came up.

Having watched the video and read the reference articles I can see where its difficult to actually nail down "Weather Resistance" and I can understand why IP standards might not cover all the problems occurring in quantifying the degree of resistance required in photography.

Trying to cover all the possibilities in which photographic equipment might be used and designing a standard to cover ever eventuality would be a nightmare leaving it in the hands of the legal boys to the themselves up in knots trying to define all the exclusions.

One thing that didn't get as much attention as I had hoped was the subject of lens protection filters, yes lens hoods do protect against the odd collision but I have never been able to make up my mind as to whether or not filters add protection or cause deterioration of the image.

Kind regards to all.

[zapp]

Weather resistance is not a defined term or standard. Most people don’t understand IP ratings properly. You may submerge a phone for 30 minutes at 1 m depth, but don’t do it twice :-) In my opinion a camera should have seals against dust and moisture. Pentax is doing quite well in this regard. No need to cover during rain. I worked on rainfall simulation for quite some time... lots of dust and water. Our Canon/Kodak kept working with lots of dust inside, my mechanical Yashica collected lots of dust in the desert - you could hear it inside, and it worked well. So, I know how to appreciate my Pentax, but would not force it too much.

[Alex645]

One thing that didn't get as much attention as I had hoped was the subject of lens protection filters, yes lens hoods do protect against the odd collision but I have never been able to make up my mind as to whether or not filters add protection or cause deterioration of the image.

To some degree clear filters add protection but also cause, to varying degree, some deterioration of the image. It's always going to be up to the photographer to decide if they are in a situation when protection is priority or quality. This is often a polarizing (no pun intended) choice, but I adapt to the situation and don't believe always filters or never filters is the best path.

And if I'm NOT shooting at the beach with salt spray and/or expect to have to wipe the front element, I use a hood instead.

Also if we're discussing protection WR on lenses, the barrel for focus and zoom rings as well the rear mount are key. It's more problematic on zooms, but better primes also have WR.

[lesmore49]

Using filters on lenses has always been a debate. Some swear by them....some swear at them.

I've been taking pics for over 50 years. I was required to take pictures, suitable for publication (magazines) for a few of those years early on. Part of my job required taking pics...in all weather, all conditions...it was about getting the photo.

I started to use filters to provide some protection to the lens...whether it helped or not, I don't know...my guess then and now, is that it afforded some protection.

As Alex645 says ...'To some degree clear filters add protection but also cause, to varying degree, some deterioration of the image.'

I don't disagree, although I have tried my lenses ...with and without filters to see if there is a difference and it is hard for me to see if there is a difference, but my tests are not scientific and I wouldn't ' quibble' on this point. Alex has more knowledge on things photographic than I do and I see his point and would say he's correct.

I use clear filters on most of my lenses, not all of them, but a number of them. I use but one brand, B&W...Made in Germany and they are pricey. I believe they keep moisture out of the lens, but all I can go by, is that I haven't seen any evidence of moisture that has got by the filter. Again, not scientific on my part, and I wouldn't bet the farm on this.

In two cases over the years, the filters have taken a hit and the lens behind the filter seemed undamaged, from what I could tell.

I would say that filters may protect the lenses from moisture and damage, but in the end, this is just my opinion .

But, if you choose to use filters....get top quality filters. There is absolutely no sense in putting a cheap piece of glass (low end filter) on an expensive lens. It would be like putting well used, chintzy bald tires on a performance car.

---

Last edited by lesmore49; 06-15-2020 at 12:56 PM.

[robgski]

But, if you choose to use filters....get top quality filters.

Exactly correct. Salt spray on a lens can be bad, but generally won't damage glass. Fine dust blowing in any sort of wind however, is gritty, and that grit can scratch and pit a lens. Beach sand can be damaging as well. In those conditions, I have either high quality UV, CPL, or ND filters on the lens. As many of those locations are often very sunny, the CPL and ND filters also give me options.

[clackers]

Whatever some lens filter does for protection, with its thin little glass surface, a plastic lens cap does better, it's designed for the job.

If someone says they remove a UV filter prior to shooting in order to not erode the image quality, well, again, you do that with a lens cap!

[clackers]

Having watched the video and read the reference articles I can see where its difficult to actually nail down "Weather Resistance"

But that will be intentional. There is then no legal guarantee of degree of waterproofing.

Look, there are diagrams showing in some of the Pentax products a large number of seals, so if it's any consolation, it's one of the best brands.

The entry level K-70 and the basic 18-50 kit lens are WR, unlike other companies who might bother only to do that for their premium products.

[Alex645]

As Alex645 says ...'To some degree clear filters add protection but also cause, to varying degree, some deterioration of the image.'

I don't disagree, although I have tried my lenses ...with and without filters to see if there is a difference and it is hard for me to see if there is a difference, but my tests are not scientific and I wouldn't ' quibble' on this point.

I use clear filters on most of my lenses, not all of them, but a number of them. I use but one brand, B&W...Made in Germany and they are pricey.

There will be situations where the filter, such as a polarizer, will enhance an image.
There will be situations where without the filter, an ND or infrared, the exposure wouldn't even be possible.
There are also many situations where I agree that shooting thru a clear filter image is not tangibly different than a non filtered shot.
The most common issue I see is when shooting into a light source and the front element reflects light onto the rear of the filter that then creates ghosting, flares, or a reduction in contrast or color saturation.

100% agree with @lesmore49 to buy the best filters you can afford like B&W. Part of that higher price is from better glass and higher quality coatings and more of them.

[PenPusher]

I think Alex645 has summed up the filter situation very well and as I mentioned at the beginning there is no point in buying a €500 lens and putting a €1 filter in front of it. Its not really surprising that B+W filters seem to be the favourite as they are made by Schneider-Kreuznach, which as far as I recall, have a long association with Schott Glass and it was Otto Schott and Ernst Abbe that carried out a lot of early experimental work leading to the wide range of glasses we now have.

Incidentally apart from making the odd camera lens or two Schneider-Kreuznach have a vast range of optical and precision engineering products.

I think Dartmoor Dave, usually found on the Takumar club, summed up weather resistance quite well, some time ago while referring to a photo taken on Dartmoor in the south of England

This was taken inside a rain cloud at the top of Great Staple Tor yesterday. So wet that the 18-55mmWR had rain spots on it again a second after I'd wiped it clear. The camera and lens have been in the dry cabinet overnight and seem fine. . . but the photographer appears to have caught a cold.

You just can't win.

[HDpotato]

For all the anecdotal evidence and advertising, PenPusher, the only one that counts is whether the manufacturer will refund you for any damage that comes from the weather.

And they won't. Like all the other manufacturers, the warranty paragraph in the box you bought your camera in says no water or dirt ingress is covered. To any extent.

So, sure, stand under a waterfall or drop it into quicksand, but it'll be at your cost if it doesn't work afterwards, not Ricoh's.

There are objective standards and tests for what you're talking about, and the camera companies refuse to certify, even on their pro models. Interestingly, some of the phone manufacturers do.

I would believe this has to do with phones being relatively simple devices to IP certify as the amounts of ports and openings are limited.
USB-C is easily sealed for water. Speakers are fitted with rubber membranes. Phones are glued together these days so the general structure of the phone is also sealed off.

I certainly wouldn't want to be tasked with guaranteeing a camera being sealed against getting hosed down with water - waay to many ports, and having a moving seal (fragile lip seal against flat surface) on the lens which will undoubtedly wear down over time pretty much guarantees that it won't last long enough to give the customer any kind of warranty backing against a certification. I used to design brake resistors for the off shore industry, getting those IP certified wasn't hard, but requires the company to be willing to back up their claims - and cameras are just not very suited for that. It can be done, but I doubt most customers would take the extra cost of manufacture and extra bulk of properly sealing all ports (latched door, proper o-ring seal in all cases) to make it happen.

The WR on the K1 seems quite good - but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the rubber flaps are not exactly structurally sensible in the scenario that your cameras is soaked completely, or worse, under water pressure from a hose.


So I agree completely. The WR is good enough for me not to worry about walking around in light rain with it for x amount of minutes to get the shots, which is what I really need.