How many people actually need weather sealing?

I'm not talking about it being a nice to have. I'm talking about, how many people actually do a significant proportion of their photography in conditions that demand either a weather sealed camera and lens, or alternatively a waterproof cover?

Just curious

Edit... doh, I can't seem to edit the typo in my last option. If a passing mod could kindly stick an 'i' before 'rrelevant' I'd be grateful. And perhaps edit this edit out too, many thanks!!

---

.
Pentax K-3, DA18-135, DA35 F2.4, DA17-70, DA55-300, FA28-200, A50 F1.7, A100 F4 Macro, A400 F5.6, Sigma 10-20 EXDC, 50-500 F4.5-6.3 APO DG OS Samsung flash SEF-54PZF(x2)
.

The reason I bought my first DSLR which was the K200D was that it had weather sealing. I considered it handy for being a geology student out in wet places.

---

K5, K200 and several film Pentax cameras!

My camera goes out in all weathers. Weather sealing is very important to me.

It was a prime concern for me.

Most important feature when I chose Pentax over Nikon. I spend a lot of time at the local kart track and it's kind of nice to be the only one left out on the track when it's raining catching photos of rooster tails.

It was important for me when i worked the music festivals but still used one of those plastic bag type things in extreme wet conditions.

---

PPG Wedding photography Flickr
Concert photography

Currently on a Pentax hiatus until an FF Pentax is released

Interesting question this... I do tend to go out quite a bit in heavy rain, storms etc, and it's definitely good to know you don't have to be too careful with it, both in terms of carrying it, and using it...

But for me, a big part of the usefulness of the weather sealing is that you don't worry about using the camera in places or conditions where it MIGHT (as opposed to definitely WILL) get wet eg standing in the sea, lots of spray, tripod very close to sea level, just above breaking waves etc...

I once did a workshop with a couple of nikon users who wouldn't go anywhere near the waters edge for fear of damaging their beloved...

Best

---

Bill

BillWardPhotography
Instagram
Facebook

It is important to me. I have been out often in very wet weather and continued to use the camera, but not always with weather-sealed lenses!

One of my K-x's got water damaged after being out in the wet, but the K-5's and K-3 have never suffered. I think it's more important for the camera to be weather-sealed than the lenses; with some simple precautions it is possible to keep the lenses acceptably dry, but I've found that a bit of water on the lenses usually does no harm as long as they are properly dried out afterwards.

Regards
David

---

Flickr

Nicola's Apartments, Kassiopi, Corfu

Some cameras, some lenses, some bits 'n' bobs

It's not important to anyone, right up until it suddenly is

Not a game changer for me, but it's nice to have. It was great a few weeks ago on a snowy day in the alps, I could take my time a pick the shots I wanted without having to worry about a bit of snow.

Phil

---

K-5iiS; K-r; ME Super; ME; DA* 16-50 f2.8; DA 18-135 WR; DA 55-300 WR; HD DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited; FA 50mm f1.4; A50mm f1.7; DAL 18-55mm; M40mm f2.8; + assorted non-Pentax lenses

My Flikr Page link

But we all know that weather sealing is not only about splashing around. Let's take those sand grains on the beach. They can be really painful and sad sometimes. Sealing comes handy then. Low temperatures (not necessary on the beach) can also be dealt with properly thanks to the weather sealing. So it's not only about moisture, although it surely was the main concern at the start point

Not a deal breaker for me but handy. I've had non weather sealed lenses on the cams in a bity of rain and not worried about it though. if it was really pissing down I'd put bag over the camera and lens

---

[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283

I don't do a significant proportion of my photography in inclement conditions needing WR, but I don't think that's the point. Like insurance, you don't need it at all until one day, you completely need it.

I need it only occasionally but I always carry at least one WR lens with me, just in case.

---

K3/K5/10-17fisheye/15mmDA Ltd/18-55WR/55-300DA/100DFAMacroWR/50F1.4M/200F4M/DA*200F2.8/DA*300F4/DA*50-135/DA*60-250/Mitsuki 400F5.6/others.

So who has actually had a camera fail due to water ingress and what were the circumstances?

I had a video camera stop for a while many years ago in Oban due to extremely wet damp weather but have never had anything fail due to rain or damp since.

Best regards

I've not replaced the Kx yet but one of the main reasons i want to replace it is so that I can take images all year round and not just for half the year, although granted i'd be limited initially to the 18-55 DA WR if the weather was really wet.

As other people have said

a) its not just the rain protection you benefit from,

and

b) The extra 'peace of mind' WR gives is a tangible benefit

Can't answer the Poll as none of the options is close enough. I can say however that if Pentax didn't offer a WR DSLR at about the £500 mark then I would look elsewhere or not purchase at all.