[Kunzite]

@D1N0 :
You have a different opinion, but that particular opinion is wrong. It's past time you accepted the arguments presented and moved on...

And nobody called you "stupid", don't make up things.

[D1N0]

It is not wrong. it is just my way of looking at it. You cannot force me to accept anything. The notion is ridiculous. I had already moved on but Mark chose to stirr me up again. So you can thank him for that. I am also not making it up. Implying and then denying is a bully strategy. I had thought better of you but alas.

---------- Post added 28-09-17 at 15:27 ----------

Below is what Ricoh says.
Features2 | PENTAX K-1 | RICOH IMAGING

Than that must be new in SR II. As it can correct for camera tilt and yaw. When focussing very close those effects are much greater. So the camera needs de focussing distance for sr. This would not work with manual macro lenses. So it still would not be wise to rely on sr there.

[photoptimist]

It all depends on whether you define "axes of stabilization" by: 1) which axes of shake are corrected or 2) how they are removed. I'd think a photographer would care more about the how many axes of disturbance are corrected (definition #1) rather than the particulars of the implementation (#2).

BTW, by D1N0's definition every lens-based VR system is strictly a 2-axis pitch-yaw stabilization no matter which dimensions of disturbance are corrected.

P.S. All SR and VR systems correct for tilt and yaw. It's only the newer ones that also correct for X-Y positional shake (which is actually technically difficult to accurately measure).

[Kunzite]

It is not wrong. it is just my way of looking at it.

The problem is that you're calling everyone else's "way of looking at" it "bs". Repeatedly.

---------- Post added 28-09-17 at 06:20 PM ----------

It is not wrong.
[...]
Than that must be new in SR II. As it can correct for camera tilt and yaw. When focussing very close those effects are much greater.

This is wrong.
The SR could correct for camera tilt and yaw and rotation since the beginning. The SR II brings new the possibility of correcting for horizontal and vertical translation; and it's for this translation that the effects are much greater at close distances.
The proof was already provided by Fogel70, who quoted Ricoh Imaging. But it's also common knowledge. And something that was repeated several times on this topic.

[D1N0]

Ricoh or Pentax never talked about yaw and pitch in the past and this image of the K10d promo does not show any yawy or pitchy arrows


Or here in the K-7:


They are not talking about yaw or pitch or axis either. That's probably Olympus marketing's fault because they started the nonsense.

I have already explained i find the term 5 axis bs, not your explanations. IF YOU ARE STILL OFFENDED I CANNOT HELP IT BECAUSE APPARENTLY YOU WANT TO BE OFFENDED.

[Kunzite]

The only thing offending here is your stubbornness in supporting a wrong theory, calling the facts "bs" and ignoring all the arguments presented.
And yes, you're calling our explanations bs as we consider the term 5 axis being reasonable - unlike your theory.

In those images, that's how the sensor is moving (except it can also rotate, by differential raising/lowering of the left/right side). The early SR is compensating for 3 axis movement: pitch, yaw and rotation. Compensating for translation is a later addition to stabilization systems in general (not only Pentax'). Compensating for translation as a later addition is well documented, including in the Pentax K-1's section about the SR II.
Again, this is a known fact, common knowledge. Not knowing it beforehand is no big deal; but aggressively refusing knowledge?

By the way, a stabilization system compensating for horizontal and vertical translation but not angular movement (pitch and yaw) would be useless.

[MarkJerling]

This is getting out of hand. D1N0 won't be participating in the thread any longer.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

If you look at the SR in the K7 when the camera is not activated the sensor is able to freely move about and tilt but once it is activated the sensor is being pushed back into the back of the SR rear plate where there are 3 bearings, 2 located at the top and a 3 at the bottom. When the camera is not activated the bearings and the sensor are free to flop around in the SR housing along with the 3 bearings.The housing that contains the bearings 3 times larger than the size of the bearings, If the sensor was allowed to tilt then these bearings will be free to travel between the sensor and the rear plate of the SR. Having these bearings free to move around behind the sensor would not be very ideal for VR calcs needed to move the sensor around as these would be random variables .

What the SR appears to do is push the sensor onto those 3 bearings with no ability for the sensor to tilt. The clearance between the bearings sensor plate and the front plate is around the thickness of 3 papers when I find my feeler gauge (will get a more accurate clearance) So if the sensor is not pushed into the bearings and is free floating we have around 1.5 paper width of tilting. But this will still mean that those bearing are free rattle around and bump into the sensor plate as VR is trying to correct for tilt.

If we look at the placement of the coils I cannot see how they would be setup for them to control a tilt of the sensor other than pushing it into the bearing and movement parallel to the focus plain.

Looking the K10, K20, K7, K5, K3 and K3II they all use the same placement of the 3 bearings.

[Fogel70]

There are basically 4 different types of corrections done for image stabilization in cameras and lenses.

Number of axis and what type of motion each type compensate for.
2-axis : Yaw + pitch (first generation of sensor stabilization and in most stabilized lenses)
3-axis : Yaw + pitch + roll (second generation of sensor stabilization) In most Pentax DSLRs before K-1.
4-axis : Yaw + pitch + up/down + left/light (used in some macro lenses)
5-axis : Yaw + pitch + roll + up/down + left/right (third generation of sensor stabilization) On Pentax K-1 and later

The sensor itself has 3 motions: Roll + up/down + left/right, but has a motion sensor for each axis of motion it can compensate for.
Angular velocity sensors for yaw, pitch and roll, and accelerometers for up/down and left/right motion.

Yaw and pitch is corrected by up/down and left/right motion of the sensor.

[Digitalis]

I wouldn't be surprised if Pentax re used components of the original design in their current generation of the SR mechanism, if it works why change it? However, Pentax cameras are slower in AF acquisition than current leading class AF cameras, It has been said that Pentax/Ricoh/whatever presently wishes to focus upon this and increase AF system responsiveness, speed and accuracy.

All I know is that Pentax has to cut their AF times in half to match the D5. I'm not sure if it is possible to accomplish this with the current implementation of the SR system, the K-1 has to do a lot before the shutter even fires.

[Rondec]

I wouldn't be surprised if Pentax re used components of the original design in their current generation of the SR mechanism, if it works why change it? However, Pentax cameras are slower in AF acquisition than current leading class AF cameras, It has been said that Pentax/Ricoh/whatever presently wishes to focus upon this and increase AF system responsiveness, speed and accuracy.

All I know is that Pentax has to cut their AF times in half to match the D5. I'm not sure if it is possible to accomplish this with the current implementation of the SR system, the K-1 has to do a lot before the shutter even fires.

I don't think it is an SR issue. If you turn off SR and shoot, the auto focus responsiveness feels exactly the same. My understanding is that if you shoot before the SR is ready, you can still take a shot, it is just that the camera will not compensate for camera movement -- it just locks the sensor in place in that situation.

I do think if I were shooting a sporting event I would probably shoot from a mono pod and disable the SR.

[Kunzite]

I'm quite sure my SR equipped K-1 has a much faster AF than my no SR *istDS had

The most important part of solving a problem is properly identifying it. We cannot just make random assumptions.

[Rondec]

I'm quite sure my SR equipped K-1 has a much faster AF than my no SR *istDS had

The most important part of solving a problem is properly identifying it. We cannot just make random assumptions.

I think we admit that the K-1 doesn't auto focus as fast as a 1Dx or D5 camera, but I just don't buy that the reason has anything to do with SR. If it were that simple, you could turn off the SR and suddenly your AF performance would improve by 25 or 30 percent and that doesn't happen.

That said, if you actually want to benefit from SR, you do need to be a bit more deliberate with regard to shooting and give the system adequate time to "arm" before shooting. The biggest place where I feel that I benefit from this is when shooting longer exposures, like waterfalls, hand held.

[normhead]

I think we admit that the K-1 doesn't auto focus as fast as a 1Dx or D5 camera, but I just don't buy that the reason has anything to do with SR. If it were that simple, you could turn off the SR and suddenly your AF performance would improve by 25 or 30 percent and that doesn't happen.

That said, if you actually want to benefit from SR, you do need to be a bit more deliberate with regard to shooting and give the system adequate time to "arm" before shooting. The biggest place where I feel that I benefit from this is when shooting longer exposures, like waterfalls, hand held.

I fail to see how the 8 FPS I get with my K-3 with SR on is any less worthwhile than the D750's 6.5 FPS without it. What the heck is going on here? Why has no one asked what's slowing down the D750? Or the D800? This is nonsense.

In the big picture, there is squat to suggest that SR makes any difference to the speed of AF. What does make a huge difference to speed of AF is keeping your camera stable enough to actually lock onto something in the frame. If you can't do that your camera isn't going to lock onto your subject, no matter what you do. AF depends on a certain amount of body stability.

When my AF is slow it's almost always in low light, the AF module is slower in lower light, and hand shake. The AF can't lock if the image is darting all over the place on the sensor. Put those two things together and you have a problem, no matter what you are shooting.

[Kunzite]

I cringe every single time when someone's making wild assumptions about what could influence the AF speed. When evaluating performance, you know nothing until you measure it.
Besides, the theory "Pentax' AF is slow because of SR" was started by Canon trolls (to be clear: on other places, by other people).