[Class A]

I agree that the reviewer (we all know from the idiotic K-5 review -- "Subpar high ISO performance.) -- could have done a better job (in terms of not rating the D5100 so high), but he could have easily slammed the K-30 for not coming with a weather-sealed kit lens. He did not (unless he thought the facts speak for themselves).

Was Pentax really forced to look at every dollar to make it a competitive kit price and hence not include the weather-sealed version?

P.S.: I liked how the reviewer mentioned the K-mount and said "that's 37 years worth of glass at your disposal". I wish. Still have to buy that glass, haven't I?

[madbrain]

but he could have easily slammed the K-30 for not coming with a weather-sealed kit lens

He did, check that is one of the "cons" in his list.

Was Pentax really forced to look at every dollar to make it a competitive kit price and hence not include the weather-sealed version?

Probably yes, though they could have offered both options.

[Class A]

He did, check that is one of the "cons" in his list.

That's not slamming. He's just making a legitimate point.

Probably yes, though they could have offered both options.

I wasn't sure if they didn't offer a full WR-kit as well. No reason not to, is there?

[Unsinkable II]

Big booboo by Pentax to cheap out with the non-WR 18-55.

The WR adds PENNIES in material costs, and dimes in additional QC and re-works. I've designed and manufactured weather-resistant and water resistant products. There are some challenges, but it's not a big deal.

[Welfl]

Big booboo by Pentax to cheap out with the non-WR 18-55.

I completely agree. No matter what Pentax-Ricoh's real reason, and no matter who here gives the most seemingly rational defense of Pentax-Ricoh's reasoning, it will appear to many consumers that they are just being greedy (and not behaving responsibly), which may be true. Pentax's defenders imply that such practices are necessary because Pentax is such a small, "struggling" company and, as such, its owners need to "economize" (aka "cut corners") whenever possible. Furthermore, such practices are not only acceptable according to modern, corporate ethics (which is a very pale imitation of true ethics), but they are absolutely necessary in order for corporations to survive in the modern world. To this, I say hogwash.

One could view Pentax's coupling of a WR camera with a non-WR kit lenses as comparable to an automobile manufacturer coupling a "water-resistant" convertible with non-water-resistant top in their two cheapest "kit" options. In spite of the potentially self-destructive nature of these types of "kits," the manufacturer still markets its convertible as WR. This is because this manufacturer -- and its defenders -- say that tops "don't count" in the overall definition of a WR convertible because tops are detachable, optional and can be purchased separately. Buyers are simply expected to know in advance -- without being told -- that the convertible is not truly WR in these particular kits. They should also, therefore, know not to drive these particular kit convertibles in the rain, even though the convertible "body" is WR. It is up to each buyer to decide whether or not to 1.) buy a convertible with no top at all (body only) and then fit it with the WR top from his or her previous convertible, or buy a new WR top separately; 2.) buy a WR convertible in a "kit" that includes much a more expensive WR top, or 3.) buy one of the budget kids and never drive in the rain.

The only flaw in my analogy is the fact that convertibles can be driven without tops in many or most instances, but (d)SLRs and MILCs cannot take pictures without lenses. This is all the more reason that lenses should never have been marketed as not being an integral part of a camera body. Just because lenses are detachable and can be purchased separately is not a valid excuse to say they are not part of the body -- at least insofar as WR goes.

The WR adds PENNIES in material costs, and dimes in additional QC and re-works. I've designed and manufactured weather-resistant and water resistant products. There are some challenges, but it's not a big deal.

I'm glad you wrote that. I've said the very same thing several times in previous threads (regarding WR and other technologies); however, unlike you, I was only able to base my statements on my overall business experiences in other fields. You have actual experience in the WR field. I know first hand that businesses and corporations charge much more for certain products that actually cost them a only few pennies more (or sometimes zero pennies more) to manufacture than their cheaper products. Even in those days I was criticized by my bosses as being too honest for my own good, because I have never believed in that sort of practice. I've even been treated by some here on PF as if I were naive and inexperienced in the ways of "legitimate" corporate profits, practices and bottom lines. To some, it's as if no one in the corporate world is even remotely greedy or unethical, at least in the modern senses of those words. Instead they are simply practicing acceptable, modern, industry-wide practices -- and are not trying to take undue advantage of their more clueless customers.

[JinDesu]

Maybe they just want to sell more 18-135 WRs.

[Ryan Trevisol]

Maybe they just want to sell more 18-135 WRs.

Also, it's not like they're not offering a fully WR kit:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/ask-b-h-photo/190558-blue-k-30-18-135wr-l...ml#post2004532
For people like me, WR is a nice-to-have feature, and maybe someday I'll pony up for a WR lens and be ready for shooting in bad weather.
If you're buying it for WR, buy the WR kit or if you have WR lenses, buy the body only.
If you're buying for focus peaking, autofocus improvements, etc etc, and you want to save some money, you have an option.

[Quicksand]

Big booboo by Pentax to cheap out with the non-WR 18-55.

Why is this suddenly a major faux pas?

The K10D, K20D, and K200D all came with unsealed lenses, and the Earth didn't split open and suck us all in.

[lammie200]

Why is this suddenly a major faux pas?

The K10D, K20D, and K200D all came with unsealed lenses, and the Earth didn't split open and suck us all in.

Perhaps we are not standing in the correct locations.

I think implicit in all this griping about the body not being offered with the 18-55 WR alone, or in combination with the 50-200 WR, is that PRICL should be offering them at outstandingly low prices. AFAIK the K-30 will be offered in a variety of packages including the 18-135 WR. Also AFAIK, I believe that there will be some savings if purchasing the body with the 18-135 WR, as opposed to purchasing them separately. This belly-aching about not receiving the 18-55 WR and/or 50-200 WR at give away pricing is cry-baby-ish IMHO. That said, Pentax lens pricing in general is too high.

[Ryan Trevisol]

I think implicit in all this griping about the body not being offered with the 18-55 WR alone, or in combination with the 50-200 WR, is that PRICL should be offering them at outstandingly low prices.

Exactly. If there the price break went Body $849, 18-55 $899, 18-55 WR $949, nobody would be complaining. But when you look at the fact that the DA 18-55 II and the DA 18-55 WR are available at Pentax's own web store for the *exact same price*, it makes you wonder.

Maybe they're just moving away from the 18-55 WR altogether. Maybe at Photokina we'll see a WR, non-sdm version of the 17-70 as the new kit! (hey, a guy can dream right?

[JinDesu]

Exactly. If there the price break went Body $849, 18-55 $899, 18-55 WR $949, nobody would be complaining. But when you look at the fact that the DA 18-55 II and the DA 18-55 WR are available at Pentax's own web store for the *exact same price*, it makes you wonder.

Maybe they're just moving away from the 18-55 WR altogether. Maybe at Photokina we'll see a WR, non-sdm version of the 17-70 as the new kit! (hey, a guy can dream right?

*cough* 18-85 F2.8-4 star lens *cough*

Or whatever the heck that star lens in that Pentax diagram is going to be.

It'd be nice for some vendors to help in this matter.. *coughb&hcough* perhaps to offer deals for the k-30 body with the 18-55 WR and the 50-200 WR together, along with some filters and some cleaning products.

[Welfl]

Maybe they just want to sell more 18-135 WRs.

Yes, that is one of my points. If I buy a K-30, I am considering the 18-135 kit lens, but mostly for its increased range and increased image quality, while only a little for its WR.

For people like me, WR is a nice-to-have feature, and maybe someday I'll pony up for a WR lens and be ready for shooting in bad weather.

Even if I owned a WR camera and a WR lens, I probably would not shoot in the rain. I'm not and never have been that gung ho about photography. Besides, we've barely had a drop of rain here in the past year anyway; and rain isn't that common here even in a normal year. That said, rainstorms can and do catch photographers completely off guard when they are far away from the nearest cover. I've had to tuck my camera inside my shirt a number of times over the years to protect it from an unexpected rain shower when I was faraway from a vehicle or a building.

I'm not being "critical" for any consumer-related reasons, only for my personal ethical beliefs (actually, "annoyed" and "disapproving" are more accurate terms in this case than "critical"). In fact, I've never owned a WR camera or WR lens in my 38 years of taking pictures, and I've always gotten along just fine without them. In fact, I didn't even know that WR cameras and lenses existed until I started studying the K-5 last year (yes, I was out of the loop for a while). I'm being "critical" because I think Pentax's coupling of a WR camera with a non-WR lens will be misleading to many of the non-professionals in the target audience for this particular camera (the sort of audience that would be interested in Pentax spokesmodel Sarah Harding, for example, and in the flashy -- and sometimes very attractive -- non-traditional colors of the K-30). To me, that almost borders on being unethical and unnecessary, especially when, as Unsinkable II says with some authority, "The WR adds PENNIES in material costs."

Why is this suddenly a major faux pas?

The sad thing is that it should always have been considered a major faux pas, but it has not been.

One of my main points in this particular thread is that Pentax-Ricoh has opened themselves up to lots of potential criticism by reviewers who are frequently eager to find fault with any non-Canikon (or non-Sony?) camera they review; and, as I wrote in my previous comment, "it will appear to many consumers [at least those who read camera reviews] that they [Pentax-Ricoh] are just being greedy (and not behaving responsibly)." Who cares if those consumers are right or wrong about that? If they decide that Pentax-Ricoh is trying to "pull a fast one," they may not buy a K-30. This "mismatched-kit" policy certainly gave me a tiny bit of pause when I first learned about it. The PC Magazine reviewer (biased as he is toward other camera brands and as wrong as he was about the K-5) was quite correct in pointing out -- in the "cons" section -- the coupling of a non-WR lens as part of a kit with a WR camera. Even B&H Photo mistakenly assumed at first that the K-30 would come with an 18-55 WR lens. What, besides logic, common sense and ethics, would have led them to come to such a wrong conclusion?

This belly-aching...

Where is the fine line between "belly aching" and legitimate criticism? Who gets to define what legitimate criticism is and what "belly aching" is?

...about not receiving the 18-55 WR and/or 50-200 WR at give away pricing is cry-baby-ish IMHO.

"Give away pricing" is an extremely subjective term. I think that $900 for a camera and a basic non-WR kit lens is not giveaway pricing. If it was, Pentax-Ricoh wouldn't be doing it. I think at that price that an 18-55 WR lens should have been standard, and there would still have been plenty of profit to spare for Pentax-Ricoh. We have to stop thinking of WR lenses as if they are made of gold, because they aren't.

That said, Pentax lens pricing in general is too high.

Is that "belly aching" or "legitimate criticism"? Either way, I totally agree with you.

[lammie200]

"Give away pricing" is an extremely subjective term. I think that $900 for a camera and a basic non-WR kit lens is not giveaway pricing. If it was, Pentax-Ricoh wouldn't be doing it. I think at that price that an 18-55 WR lens should have been standard, and there would still have been plenty of profit to spare for Pentax-Ricoh.

I was bored at work when I posted and felt like ruffling someone's feathers.

The K-30 body will be $850 USD at initial offering.
A used 18-55 WR on average sells for $130 USD.
A new 18-55 WR sells for $200 USD at BH, etc.
You are proposing that PRICL sell the 18-55 WR for $50 USD. That is about 40% of what a used one goes for, and 25% of what a new one goes for. I should stop here.

The K-30 with the 18-135 WR will be $1200 USD at initial offering.
A used 18-135 WR on average sells for about the same as new one right now. BH, etc. offers it at $530 USD.
PRICL's kit price results in a 33% savings on the 18-135 WR.

As far as people being duped into thinking that the kit K-30 and 18-55 and/or 50-200 are fully WR, I don't buy it. Just like everything there will be outliers, but the fact that the camera is a K-mount (with a vast repertoire of compatible lenses) should be enough to spur consumers to use the www and research the products. An interesting poll would be "At what price for a product would you be likely to use the www to research the product for its features?" My guess is that at $850 USD there would be a vast majority of people that will say the would be likely to use the web for researching.

I work with brick and mortar vendors that carry a variety products. When someone goes to them to look at products and get quotes, the vendors supply the quotes with their own codes for each product. Sometimes they don't even list the manufacture and/or model on their quotes. Simple reason - they don't want to be a shill for someone that is just going to go to the www and find the same products cheaper. It is predicated on survival. Relatively speaking, where do you think Pentax is?

[Unsinkable II]

Why is this suddenly a major faux pas?

The K10D, K20D, and K200D all came with unsealed lenses, and the Earth didn't split open and suck us all in.

The K10D, K20D and K200D all predated my arrival to Pentax.

Was their advertising based around an image of them being soaked with water?

[Welfl]

I was bored at work when I posted and felt like ruffling someone's feathers.

Okay, fair enough.

The K-30 body will be $850 USD at initial offering. ... You are proposing that PRICL sell the 18-55 WR for $50 USD

No, actually I'm not. I've thought quite a bit since day one about the option of paying $850 for the body only versus the option of paying $900 for the body plus a lens. Pentax is making it look as if they are practically giving away the 18-55 non-WR lens for a mere $50 extra. However, I don't see it that way at all. I see Pentax as selling the K-30's body only for a measly $50 less than it can be bought with a lens. In other words, they aren't offering enough of a discount for buying the body only. There may be some validity to my perspective since Pentax has rarely sold any of its lenses for such a "low" (perceived) price in the past, even in kit form. I find it hard to believe they are suddenly being generous in this one instance. It is out of character for them.

But I guess my observation is just a matter of perspective.

As far as people being duped into thinking that the kit K-30 and 18-55 and/or 50-200 are fully WR, I don't buy it.

Okay, since I have no way to prove or disprove either of our theories (mine was pure speculation), I will give you that one just for the sake of maintaining good relations . Nonetheless, I am still ethically opposed to bundling a non-WR lens with a WR camera. Not only does it seem unethical and just plain wrong, it also seems tacky and cut rate to me, regardless of whether it is an acceptable practice by today's standard's or not. Whether right or wrong on my part, it causes me to have a low opinion of the decision makers at Pentax-Ricoh. I would like to expect better of them than that. However, that's just my personal feelings on the matter. I seem to be a few decades out of step with almost everyone else in such matters, anyway.

Simple reason - they don't want to be a shill for someone that is just going to go to the www and find the same products cheaper.

I can certainly understand that. I've been guilty of doing it myself. I've been trying to avoid feeling guilty about my plans to go to my local Target and look at the three K-30s and then come home and order one online, but I haven't been too successful at avoiding the guilt so far. Of course, it is possible that the local Target will not even get any in stock, because this area is considered by big-city types to be "the middle of nowhere"; therefore, consumers here are thought of as not being worth the bother when it comes to less common merchandise.

Relatively speaking, where do you think Pentax is?

I don't know what you are asking.