[volley]

ring ultrasonic motor is quite huge set of rings around the moving part of focusing group.. different principle of construction when compared with DC motors

I'm not sure if you know what you're talking about, DC only tells you how the current is applied, nothing else. It does not tell you if it is a ultrasonic ring motor which sees the current or not. And actually, the USM assembly is not that huge when I look at disassembled Canon lenses.
Probably Pentax just decided to use a different designation because of the bad reputation the SDM (Supersonic Dynamic Motor) had earned over the years?

[beholder3]

I'm not sure if you know what you're talking about, DC only tells you how the current is applied, nothing else

This here intended to explain some of it:
The 5 Lens Autofocus Drive Types Explained - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com

[BarneyL]

According to this: The 5 Lens Autofocus Drive Types Explained - Articles and Tips | PentaxForums.com

DC motor in 70-200 and 150-450 might not be the same thing as in 18-135.

"Brushless torque ring motors are "DC" motors, but typically also do not use any gears. They are fat rings around the lens barrel. In many ways they are similar to ring-type ultrasonic drives, but they are of a significantly heavier build."

Edit: got beaten to it

[biz-engineer]

Second of all. Did watch that video you linked. That guy should adjust focus.

He did calibrate the lens or returned the lens and made another test, with a corrective video (if I remember), where he acknowledge that his copy of the D-FA70-200 was faulty when he did the comparison with Nikon. But Xmeda picked the first video where it is showed that the D-FA70-200 missed and posted it here.

See next vid:

You Tube

You Tube

[repaap]

He did calibrate the lens or returned the lens and made another test, with a corrective video (if I remember), where he acknowledge that his copy of the D-FA70-200 was faulty when he did the comparison with Nikon. But Xmeda picked the first video where it is showed that the D-FA70-200 missed and posted it here.

Somehow I’m not surprised. Not that it matters to me anyway. I know what I have and have said it. I don’t want to argue on something that does not need to be argued

[Not a Number]

Hmm, I thought in Pentax case DC motor referred to non-ultrasonic Direct Connect (e.g. Direct Drive) motors. The load (focus mechanism) is directly connected to the (ring) motor without gears or belts and pulleys.

Edit: Ha ha! See posts #92 and 93 above Too slow on the submit button....

[Kharan]

There ARE DC Ring motors. Asahiman hinted at such a drive in the dFAs.

Until someone opens his lens we will not know for sure.

BTW there are incredibly slow ring USM drives out there as well.

Well, ring motors are by definition ‘DC’, since they use direct current, but no, there’s no such thing as a ring motor that employs a brushless DC motor... because then the ring motor wouldn’t be a motor at all. It could be a “supersonic” micromotor, like the ill-fated original SDM, or Canon’s Micro USM, but then it wouldn’t be a ring-type drive at all. Ring-type motors use vibrations in very high frequencies, that are translated into rotational motion, to move a focusing group. This works nothing at all like a brushless DC motor.

I’d like to see an “incredibly slow” ring-type drive. I don’t believe it exists. But there certainly are manufacturers that play fast and loose with their naming schemes (almost all of them, actually), and use confusing terminology to make buyers believe that they’re going to get the same performance from a standard zoom or prime than from an exotic telephoto prime, when in reality the former have puny AF motors that work ‘OK’ (and show little, if any, difference with Pentax lenses), and the latter use very powerful motors - and that’s where the difference is really felt.

Ultimately, the industry is moving away from both types of AF motors in preference of linear drives, which are nowadays relatively cheap to produce and have very quick startup, low energy consumption, no friction, and the ability to change direction really quickly. By using two, or even four linear motors, faster AF speeds can be achieved over even the best ring-type drives with competitive energy consumption and extremely precise control. Many Micro Four Thirds and Sony E setups have single-point AF speeds and precision that need to be experienced to be believed, all thanks to linear drives. Pentax have also used this type of motor in their PLM lens - it’d have been fantastic if they had used this technology sooner.

[reh321]

None of the recent posts relate to "information about new APSC". I have found that the 18-135mm DC and 55-300mm PLM lenses meet most of my needs for a {admittedly slightly different camera} KP; I am sure the current set of lenses will meet most needs of owners of the new camera - certainly better than the K-3ii does - certainly better than the current camera {nothing} does.

[thibs]

He did calibrate the lens or returned the lens and made another test, with a corrective video (if I remember), where he acknowledge that his copy of the D-FA70-200 was faulty when he did the comparison with Nikon. But Xmeda picked the first video where it is showed that the D-FA70-200 missed and posted it here.

See next vid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwVMx3b7nYI

How surprising...

[Trickortreat]

Pentax needed something in the K-7/5/3 slot - now they will have something.

Why? Even K5ii/s is competitive relative to modern offerings. They should have just continued to sell k3ii and start working on at least those screw driven lenses...

---------- Post added 09-24-19 at 07:07 PM ----------

Pentax has said that the 'accelerator' can not be optional - I hope they keep it.

Nothing that cant be achieved with some post processing...

[Kunzite]

Why? Even K5ii/s is competitive relative to modern offerings. They should have just continued to sell k3ii and start working on at least those screw driven lenses...

No, it's not. Don't set artificial limits for Pentax' development.

[Trickortreat]

Only thing limithing are the lenses

[BigMackCam]

Why? Even K5ii/s is competitive relative to modern offerings. They should have just continued to sell k3ii and start working on at least those screw driven lenses...

The K-5IIs is an awesome camera... but its resolution, AF and high ISO performance aren't comparable to, or competitive with, current higher-end APS-C offerings from other brands.

Nothing that cant be achieved with some post processing...

There was a recent discussion about this. It turns out that the accelerator isn't carrying out traditional noise reduction as you'd find in, say, Lightroom. I can't recall exactly what the difference was, but it was a rather separate approach. Still, noise reduction in post-processing can work wonders if used skillfully... but it does nothing for the straight out of camera results, and that's what potential buyers and review sites are looking at.

Only thing limithing are the lenses

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but it's not one shared by everyone, or even most. I certainly don't feel limited by the lenses I have for my K-3 / K-3II...

[luftfluss]

Why? Even K5ii/s is competitive relative to modern offerings. They should have just continued to sell k3ii and start working on at least those screw driven lenses...

Considering that it would cost $$ to make another production run (is the sensor even available?), re-releasing a product over a half-decade old makes little sense.

I don't know what other cameras you have used, but the K-3 II lags behind Fuji, Nikon, Sony and even Pentax's other APS-C offerings in sensor capabilities.

[reh321]

Nothing that cant be achieved with some post processing...

Pentax says 'accelerator' uses information from sensor that is not available to "PP".