Then lets say 100% chance.
But over what time frame? Who knows. Could be a while. Really depends on the environment (sandy beach, dusty race track, or clean room?).
I was on two week vacation on boat and land with a sigma 18-200 lens (kept the same lens on). Never had a problem with noticeable dust getting in. (and that was back with my old istD which seemed to send out invitations to dust sometimes.)

I would not obsess over it. Even a little dust is easy to get rid of with a blast of air, or later through Photoshop... although perhaps a little irritating on a thousand+ photos from a trip.

Is internal focusing or does the lens mechanically move in and out to Zoom or to Focus?

Some lenses cause a mild vacuum action as their parts "zoom" in and out, often sucking dust directly into your camera. So in that case, probably 100%.
But how long it will take until something significant enough to notice gets stuck there??? Probably quite a while. Taking the lens off is probably the biggest culprit.
The coating on the K10D sensor really seems to keep a lot of dust from sticking in the first place.

A sealed lens (DA* 50-135 or DA* 16-50) should almost totally eliminate dust getting into your camera.

Bring a small rocket blower, and you should be good for 95+% of dust. I have et to need more than to give a quick shot from the rocket blower to get any irritating dust off my sensor.

I still wonder though, about seals inside places such as when you remove the battery or SD card? I'm hoping those are sealed so that dust that always builds up there will say out. The outer doors are sealed but those do open and allow dust in... I just don't know how far.

Well, Windows XP Service pack 3 is out and available via Windows Update.
I installed it last night and after about two hours I had , well , er, um... I had a nice door stop.

Spent the morning doing a complete system restore. (Luckily I do full disk level backups twice a week and most of my important data is on a stable Linux system.)

Lots of people have had no problems but I have heard of others destroying their system as well. For an OS that has little to no history or reputation of stability, I would take any care necessary when instituting any change into the system.

Anyway, if you have the temptation to update to Sp3, be sure to backup any important data.

What fake dragonfly? That thing was huge and nearly took my head off, but it was distracted by the others caught in the gazebo. Their fate was not captured by my camera.

er, um, yeah...

Anyway, I hate those sorts of things. The park was really nice but loaded with iron work sculptures and animal-like "artwork" made of old chrome auto bumpers. It was really tasteless in the midst what would otherwise had been a really nice environment.

OK, two compters both calibrated with the same deice and software... but two totally different images... I processed the first image on each machine using the multiply trick Don showed. The I did the same process and adjusted it to look decent on the second machine.
The result looked quite decent in the end on each machine, but as you can see, neither looks very close when viewed elsewhere!!

Isn't color calibration supposed to result in a more consistent display?
If every machine is going to be so drastically different, what is the point? I certainly cannot send both of these for prints and expect to get similar result! Argh!!

Anyway, another attempt from my main PC.




(Yeah, still a bit over-saturated, but I didn't want to spend a lot of time.... just a quick 10 second multiply can make quite an improvement for a starting point rather than a load of color minor adjustments.)

Wow. One quick short step, and not too bad for this one. A lot easier than using the color tool in SilkyPix or ACR. Still looks a bit bland on the web, but was too saturated in Photoshop. But for a 10 second adjustment, not too shabby...




I may have to play with that a bit more and see if it helps some other photos.

Thanks

I've heard of that and have tried it a few times but haven't liked the looks. It could be I'm processing too much before using it??
I'll give that a go and see what it does for this one. It is lacking contrast so that might do pretty well on this one.

Thanks

Funny thing... I'm getting this color management stuff more under control, but even thought the image looks pretty good in SilkyPix and PhotoShop, the image still sucks in sRGB (Even if I convert to sRGB profile and/or use Save for Web and Devices for images going to the web.)

I have been using Photoshop less and less, getting results straight from SilkyPix, but when I do use Photoshop I try to soft proof in sRGB and adjust. I just hate using the extra steps, and it seems to be counter productive with how color management is supposed to work.

Anyway, got rambling off topic. I'll give the multiply thingy a go and post a mod.

Went on a group outing this past weekend with the local photo club. Looked to be a good day until that day actually arrived.

Ended up being cold and rainy. So I dressed as waterproof as I could and showed up with my K10D -- the only Pentax in the bunch. Even though some of them brought plastic baggies for protecting their gear, I was pretty much the only one out taking photos. Most were still too afraid to get their gear wet. Ya just gotta love that feature on the newer Pentax cameras!

Anyway, not a super photo... but I like that you can see everyone huddling for cover in the gazebo.

Maybe not directly in relation to your question... but you also have to remember that there is more to it than just field of view. When you say, for example, 50mm you are defining a set of attributes of physics that do not change because of the sensor you have behind it.

One such attribute is your Depth Of Focus (Depth of field??). Putting a cropped sensor behind a 50mm lens does not change the DOF characteristics of the lens to that of a 75mm lens.
Obviously, because the smaller sensor has cropped/zoomed in to the image, the area covered by the "area in focus" seems larger. (Still, it is not equivalent to DOF of a 75mm lens).

The too often used term "35mm equivalent" really is no such thing -- unless perhaps when further qualified with "field of view".

I never had much film experience or experience with full sized sensors, so for me 50mm is only familiar in the DSLR cropped sensor world.
Saying 35mm equivalent has no real meaning to me in any sense.

I saw a of that preview on Ned Bunnell's blog and have been wondering how much more water resisant is the K20D than the K10D?
It seems that is what they are implying, or am I just reading it wrong?

Is the K10D not as tightly sealed?
I've run my K10D under the shower head and it seems fine.