I was also looking for a beach/snorkelling camera this summer and one thing that seemed to be pretty common to all of them (as well as slightly patchy image quality) was reports of leaks (which are pretty terminal in salt water). This was even when the users claimed they'd followed the seal care instructions. This had been my experience with my previous (admittedly very cheap) one - and I do know how to look after the seals (I used to have a Nikonos). Also they tend to have pretty naff seals rather than proper O-rings.

So I got a compact (not Pentax) and a snorkelling housing (rated to 3m but was OK at 8m) for about the same money. The design makes all the potential failure points obvious and easy to check, and it inspires a lot more confidence IMHO (though still no proper O-ring on the main seal).

It is though bigger (though you don't have to use the housing when you don't want/need to) and you do (probably) lose things like shock resistance. It's also a bit OTT if you don't actually want to take it underwater.

I was very happy with the results - snorkelling and on a couple of small boat days - and would do the same again.

I did swap a 12-24 for a 15, and i did it because 90% of the time I was using the 12-24 was in crowded cities. The 12-24 (with big hood) just kept getting in the way - people and things. No regrets so far (was worried I'd miss 12mm).

In other environments I prefer the 10-17 (you can hide the 'fishyness' quite easily if you want to when there aren't straight lines all over the place) and if I didn't have that I might have thought differently about keeping the 12-24. (Having said that, it's a lot easier to put a 15 in your pocket as an extra lens than a 12-24).

I only live here - but I agree that just because a bunch of not-especially-interested-in-photography people like it doesn't mean it's a certain hit.

[quote="vrapan"]Did you tell them it only looks like that cause it has no zoom?

I believe the people that you describe are the people that will first ask how much it can zoom. [/quote]It was one of the photoshopped ones - with the 31ltd not the new 40mm - and we went on from there. I know a 31ltd isn't a zoom, but they didn't and it's not that small. They seemed OK when we (me+the other two) said that better image quality = bigger camera (than a P&S) and nothing you can really do about it. They just don't want a DSLR - remember the Kevin Spacey PEN adverts?

A group of our friends were over last night (some male, mostly female) and saw the pictures - they ALL like it and ALL want one (they won't actually buy one of course - they are all late 30s/early-to-mid 40 (so not 'kids'), and (with the exception of the two - female - who have one) think DSLRs are awkward, ugly and 'complicated'. Some of them don't even like walking around with someone else carrying a DSLR. So don't underestimate the impact of 'style', 'fashion' and 'design' - and this is in rural Wales, not Kensington. The non-SLR users all use compacts with LCDs only - and that's the way they want to use a camera. They haven't used any other kind of viewfinder so they don't know actually even realise, really, what the shortcomings are. They would have absolutely no intention of hanging a 70-200 f/2.8 on one.

I actually like the design (particularly the yellow one but must admit I'd want an EVF - and the other DSLR owners agreed.

Was a bit of an eye opener.

Since the Mac version is currently only 69p through the App Store it seems a no-brainer to give it a go if you're an Apple user.

To be fair though, 5 mins is a lot less than you'd have to take with the more usual tracking mount technologies.

Not wishing to be pedantic but the real back-from-the-brink product was the iMac (1998 - iPod was 2001).

What Jobs understood, and which some technically-focussed people still don't understand, is that typical
buyers were more interested in usability and style as technical specification. Of the 20 or so other DSLR owners I know only one understands sensor size and he isn't really bothered by the implications. Another couple have said they want to learn more, but despite my offer of help they've failed to do anything about it for two years so I guess they don't think it's that important. And these are not stupid people - they are highly educated (many scientifically), numerate, intelligent people. They're just not interested enough in technical details.

I don't think the Q is going to be Pentax's iPod or iMac, and I don't personally want one. But I wouldn't be surprised if it had a significant number of buyers who, in their terms were making a rational decision despite what we might think.

Well I did say I was in a pedantic mood and to be more pedantic it's a function of optical design, effectively including a teleconverter-like group of elements at the back (or Barlow lens in telescope). I've always assumed the 'length' defn. only applied when focussed at infinity. I doubt many long 'telephoto' lenses aren't telephoto designs these days, except those insanely long cheap and nasty ones with weird names that you only seem to get on eBay.

I know what the term means in practice - I use it that way myself and I'm not going to the stake about this. But no reason not to know the technical meaning as far as I can see? (And my 100mm macro may not be a telephoto even at infinity since it's always > 100mm - just - from front element to sensor plane)

The normal, sane and accepted meeting but strictly speaking it's only a telephoto if it's physically shorter than it's focal length - otherwise it's a long-focus lens. It's the 'reverse' of retro-focus designs needed for wide-angle lenses for SLRs that have an unavoidably-large registration distance because of the mirror. (Sorry, it's been one of those days... - to the tune of Ride of the Valkyries: 'Mr Pedantic, Mr Pedantic...')

I've only ever had to do a Tamron 17-50 on a K20d. It's fine on a K-5.