Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

Remember, guys, USM is a trademark belonging to Canon. Anyone else who uses similar tech has to call it something else. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --- K.Takeshita wrote: > On 9/

Re: Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

> > From: Pancho Hasselbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2006/09/03 Sun PM 09:09:49 GMT > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? > "USM"?) > > That's an interesting asp

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On 9/03/06 10:11 PM, "Paul Stenquist", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A number of people apparently have the release. Rob divulges a bit of > it from time to time. Thank you Paul. Now I understand what's going on :-). Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/li

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

A number of people apparently have the release. Rob divulges a bit of it from time to time. Paul On Sep 3, 2006, at 10:01 PM, K.Takeshita wrote: > On 9/03/06 9:22 PM, "K.Takeshita", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> And, I doubt if Pentax released this press on USM (or whatever >> they term it).

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On 9/03/06 9:22 PM, "K.Takeshita", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And, I doubt if Pentax released this press on USM (or whatever they term it). Never mind, folks. I am just embarrassing myself, as I was not following the thread. So, what seems to be a press release is circulating in the net? And

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

Almost all manufacturers distribute their press releases via the internet. They rely on the integrity of the journalists involved to protect their embargo date. Most will do so as a matter of professional ethics. Then again, Pentax may have leaked this purposely. Stimulating pre-release con

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On 04/09/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > LOL. I wonder how many others have a copy of that press release? > Funny how Pentax decided to distribute it in the form of an > easy-to-copy PDF! Plenty I'm guessing, they have been doing this for a while, it makes a lot of sense but not gre

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

At 09:13 AM 4/09/2006, Digital Image Studio wrote: >On 04/09/06, Digital Image Studio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "6. Compatibility with supersonic motor-driven lenses > > The K10D is designed to be compatible with supersonic motor-driven > > autofocus lenses > > (currently under development)

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On 9/03/06 9:09 PM, "Digital Image Studio", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No I literally meant it must have been a translation error on the > press release as it says: And, I doubt if Pentax released this press on USM (or whatever they term it). The only official words from Pentax that might be su

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

Digital Image Studio wrote: >No I literally meant it must have been a translation error on the >press release as it says: > >"6. Compatibility with supersonic motor-driven lenses >The K10D is designed to be compatible with supersonic motor-driven >autofocus lenses >(currently under development), w

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On 9/03/06 9:09 PM, "Digital Image Studio", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "6. Compatibility with supersonic motor-driven lenses > The K10D is designed to be compatible with supersonic motor-driven > autofocus lenses > (currently under development), which are expected to provide smoother, quieter >

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On 9/03/06 9:16 PM, "K.Takeshita", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hope it was not my post, was it? :-). If I caused this silly confusion, I of course apologize. I just do not recollect I posted it, not recently anyway. Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On 04/09/06, Digital Image Studio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "6. Compatibility with supersonic motor-driven lenses > The K10D is designed to be compatible with supersonic motor-driven > autofocus lenses > (currently under development), which are expected to provide smoother, quieter > autofocus

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On 04/09/06, K.Takeshita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/03/06 8:31 PM, "Digital Image Studio", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It must be a translation error then ;-) > > I did not know the thread wandered into the "dictionary definition" etc, and > thought it was silly :-). Hi Ken, No I lite

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On 9/03/06 8:31 PM, "Digital Image Studio", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It must be a translation error then ;-) I did not know the thread wandered into the "dictionary definition" etc, and thought it was silly :-). Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/li

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On 04/09/06, K.Takeshita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Folks, dictionary definitions are correct, but it's just that the vibration > frequency applied to the stator of the USM application falls within the > ultrasonic range. That's all. It must be a translation error then ;-) -- Rob Studdert H

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

On 9/03/06 5:09 PM, "Pancho Hasselbach", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's an interesting aspect. For example, DA 40 Ltd is known to cover > 35mm, probably you remember Unca Mickey (from whom we haven't heard for > some time) who uses it on his *ist (without any D). > I'm still waiting for infor

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

That's an interesting aspect. For example, DA 40 Ltd is known to cover 35mm, probably you remember Unca Mickey (from whom we haven't heard for some time) who uses it on his *ist (without any D). I'm still waiting for information on the true coverage of the different DA lenses, which may be large

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On 9/03/06 3:59 PM, "Godfrey DiGiorgi", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The dictionary definitions (supported by at least 8 dictionaries > according to dictionary.com) I provided earlier are what I've heard > these two adjectives to mean since the 1960s. > > Supersonic: faster than the speed of sou

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

The dictionary definitions (supported by at least 8 dictionaries according to dictionary.com) I provided earlier are what I've heard these two adjectives to mean since the 1960s. Supersonic: faster than the speed of sound. Ultrasonic: above the pitch of human hearing. I don't know any s

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

That's one piece of anectdotal evidence. But unless you can show that the optical design of the two lenses is the same it doesn't really offer much to support your position. After all, Pentax managed to come up with (proportionally) larger differences in size and weight between "K" and "M" lense

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

I was referring to the meaning of the prefixes. I agree that supersonic usually means above the speed of sound. John On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:57:54 +0100, Digital Image Studio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 04/09/06, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Etymologically, "super" means "ab

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On 04/09/06, John Forbes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Etymologically, "super" means "above", and "ultra" means "beyond". So > supersonic means above human hearing, ie: pitched too high, whilst > ultrasonic could be either too low or too high. Even though you are correct when I read or hear the te

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

DFA are usable on ALL pentax film bodies. FAJ are usable but only with body from A generation and beyond and several with limited functionality since their are always in 'A' mode. An FAJ (or a DA BTW) will work on a SuperA/MZ5/MZS/SF but only in TV and P mode. Of course the DA won't cover 35mm but

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

Etymologically, "super" means "above", and "ultra" means "beyond". So supersonic means above human hearing, ie: pitched too high, whilst ultrasonic could be either too low or too high. John On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 05:30:28 +0100, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sep 2, 2006,

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

In a message dated 9/3/2006 9:37:51 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Staying simple: FAJ are FA without aperture ring. DA are FAJ but cover only APS-C sensors (As far as we know) and optimized for digital DFA are FA optimized for Digital Thibault Massart aka Thibouille ==

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

Staying simple: FAJ are FA without aperture ring. DA are FAJ but cover only APS-C sensors (As far as we know) and optimized for digital DFA are FA optimized for Digital Thibault Massart aka Thibouille -- *ist-D,Z1,SuperA,KX,MX, P30t and KR-10x ;) ... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

In a message dated 9/3/2006 4:29:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I tend to think that Pentax will produce only DA lenses. But I also still feel that the size difference between FDA and DA at longer focal lengths could be minimal. Paul === You know, I am not sure of t

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

On 03/09/06, Jostein Øksne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There is evidence that flies right in the face of your statements. > Take 600mm f/5.6, for example (links below). This is a convenient > comparison because it exists in both 645 and K mount A-series. The > only dimension being smaller for the

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

I tend to think that Pentax will produce only DA lenses. But I also still feel that the size difference between FDA and DA at longer focal lengths could be minimal. Paul On Sep 3, 2006, at 5:02 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote: > Adam, Paul, > > There is evidence that flies right in the face of your st

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not?"USM"?)

tember 02, 2006 3:36 PM > Subject: Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or > not?"USM"?) > > > Out of 13 lenses projected until 2006, 11 are DA lenses, even the > upcoming f/2.8 zooms. Right now I find it hard to believe we will see > any more

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

Adam, Paul, There is evidence that flies right in the face of your statements. Take 600mm f/5.6, for example (links below). This is a convenient comparison because it exists in both 645 and K mount A-series. The only dimension being smaller for the 645 is length. I haven't done the maths, but it w

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On Sep 2, 2006, at 1:31 PM, Adam Maas wrote: > You should know that Jargon definitions are often at odds with > what's in > the Dictonary, and for good reason (Jargon must be precise, but > doesn't > tend to worry about namespace collision outside the field in which its > used). This is Jargo

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 03/09/06, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Also in-body aperture control is distinctly more fine-grained than the >>aperture control on the lens, from a general use standpoint, given the >>standard 1/3 stop control from the body and the normal 1 stop con

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

On 03/09/06, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also in-body aperture control is distinctly more fine-grained than the > aperture control on the lens, from a general use standpoint, given the > standard 1/3 stop control from the body and the normal 1 stop control > from the lens (Yes, you can

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

I read the page in question. It's extremely vague about how information is communicated, just that it is, the obvious answer of a combination of mechanical and electronic communication (Which is known to be implemented on another extremely similar mount) is the one which shaves with Occam's Raz

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

Like I said read the page. It tells all and you'll be closer to the truth, and not nearly so annoying. We're talking about a mechanical system here. You're assuming that the lever in the camera and the mechanical linkage to the aperture mechanism in the lens is more accurate than the marked a

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

Perhaps the same way as the Nikon's do with an AF lens and the aperture not at minimum? Relative aperture based on the aperture simulator and a little math from the max aperture info given by the lens to the camera. I'm seriously doubting that there is an electronic encoder added to the apertur

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

Read the specification. It's available on Boz's K mount page, (http://www.bdimitrov.de/kmp/). The only cameras that use the F ring use it's mechanical properties, but it reports the set f-stop electronically to the camera body for display purposes. Try an F/FA lens off the A position on say

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

Faster with less hunting. Paul On Sep 2, 2006, at 1:09 PM, Joseph Tainter wrote: > You're missing the fact that you can get much better autofocus > performance with a motor in the lens. > > Paul > > - > > I'm not questioning this, Paul, but could you provide more details > about > what you m

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not?"USM"?)

Huh??? There are three of them scheduled for release early next year. Pål - Original Message - From: "Jostein Øksne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 3:36 PM Subject: Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF U

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

Only the wider lenses are a lot larger. My 300/4 for the 6x7 appears to be abut the same size as the 35mm version. I think the 600s are even closer. Paul On Sep 2, 2006, at 11:51 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote: > Then tell me, guys, > Why are the medium format optics so much larger for corresponding

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not?"USM"?)

DA won't make it smaller or cheaper - Original Message - From: "Jostein Øksne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 3:38 PM Subject: Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor o

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > On Sep 2, 2006, at 7:51 AM, graywolf wrote: > > >>Supersonic means just above the human hearing range, ultrasonic means >>far above it but below the range of radio waves. Usually that is >>something like 15kc to 30kc for supersonic, and 30kc to 100kc for >>ultrasonic wav

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

No, the aperture ring on F and FA lenses is mechanical, not electronic as on the PanaLeica 4/3rds lens(es). -Adam P. J. Alling wrote: > The F and Fa lenses already report that set aperture to the camera body, > if it wishes to read it. They could be used entirely electronically as > is the n

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

Shorter optics are bulkier in MF, longer optics are not, and the deciding point is usually around 200-300mm. The size exception is where they neck down to meet the mount (as 35mm mounts are notably smaller). In fact the 35mm version should be slightly longer in most cases (to cover the differe

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

John already said that, I was pointing out the other significant difference. I should have worded it different. Dave On 9/3/06, DagT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, you may also say that the D-FA lenses differ from DA lanses in > that they have aperture rings. If USM lenses do not give AF on o

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

No, you may also say that the D-FA lenses differ from DA lanses in that they have aperture rings. If USM lenses do not give AF on older cameras I do not think they will have aperture rings, even if they cover FF. DagT Den 2. sep. 2006 kl. 20.45 skrev David Savage: > The significance of DF

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with you John. I got over the lack of aperture ring very quickly. As a matter of fact, it was never an issue for me as I own only one lens that doesn't have an "A" setting, and it lives on my LX. But I can appreciate how others feel about it being missi

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

We'll just have to disagree. You think just the larger image circle is enough to make a lens a DFA lens. I don't share that viewpoint. On Sun, Sep 03, 2006 at 02:45:38AM +0800, David Savage wrote: > The significance of DFA lens is that they cover the 35mm frame. Not > all the DA's do without v

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

I'm not wedded to the technology - I just want auto focus that works as fast, and as quietly, as the best Canon have to offer. As has been shown many times, in many different fields, direct drive offers many advantages as compared to gear trains (such as no hysteresis/backlash, better matching to

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

The significance of DFA lens is that they cover the 35mm frame. Not all the DA's do without vignetting. Dave. On 9/3/06, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I thought a significant difference between DA and DFA was the presence > of an aperture ring. Sure, longer focal lengths are going t

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

The F and Fa lenses already report that set aperture to the camera body, if it wishes to read it. They could be used entirely electronically as is the new Panasonic/Leica 4/3 duo. No real complication at all, the extra control costs pennies to implement, and Pentax keeps is promise about keep

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, Mark Roberts wrote: > The 60-250/4.0, the 200/2.8 and 300/4.0 are going to be DFA lenses. No USM then? Otherwise why bother optimise them for FF? Kostas -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

On Sat, Sep 02, 2006 at 10:19:57AM -0400, K.Takeshita wrote: > Adam Maas mykroft at mykroft.com Sat Sep 2 08:49:28 EST 2006 > > >> 400/4 with SSM would be neat. Can't see any good reason to make it > >> DFA, though. DA will make it smaller, cheaper and just as good. > >> > >> > >> Jostein > >>

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On Sat, 2 Sep 2006, Douglas Newman wrote: > If it will work on existing Pentax bodies, I think > it's a nice feature (but not important). If these > lenses will initially autofocus ONLY on the K10D, I > think it is a stupid choice since that would make > those lenses much less desirable to current

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

The gears in the lens and the material the lens is made from seems to make a huge difference in the amount of focus noise that Pentax lenses make. The FA 20-35 is much quieter, (plastic body), is much quieter than than the F 70-210 (metal body). The FA 43 seems to make a bit less noise than t

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

> Toralf Lund wrote: > >>> But it IS driven by ultrasonic frequency AC. >>> >> My point is that an AC frequency can't be "ultrasonic" since electricity >> isn't sound. The vibration in a piezoelectric setup, on the other hand, >> in a way is. >> >> - Toralf >> >> > > Then there ar

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

David Savage wrote: >On 9/2/06, Jostein Øksne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Then tell me, guys, >> Why are the medium format optics so much larger for corresponding >> focal lengths and max apertures? > >Because it looks more professional to have a big lens mounted on a big camera. Har! (Beat me

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

You're missing the fact that you can get much better autofocus performance with a motor in the lens. Paul - I'm not questioning this, Paul, but could you provide more details about what you mean by "better?" Thanks, Joe -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mail

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

On 9/2/06, Jostein Øksne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Then tell me, guys, > Why are the medium format optics so much larger for corresponding > focal lengths and max apertures? Because it looks more professional to have a big lens mounted on a big camera. Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List P

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

The telephotos are not. Only when you get into focal lengths that will not cover 6x7 (or whatever), do the lenses get smaller for a smaller formats. -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" --

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

Well, yes, but on the other hand it occurs to me that we are talking about "advertising speak" as if it had some intrinsic meaning. Kind of foolish isn't it? -- graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" -

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

Point about front element taken, but the front element is not THE single factor in deciding the weight of a lens. I have five lenses for the 645 system, and all of them are heavier, and bulkier, than their K counterparts. Jostein On 9/2/06, Digital Image Studio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 03/

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

And an explanation of how it works: On 9/2/06, Jens Bladt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > USM illustrated here: > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

On 03/09/06, Jostein Øksne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Then tell me, guys, > Why are the medium format optics so much larger for corresponding > focal lengths and max apertures? The long lenses aren't, I had a 400/4 for my 67, it didn't taper much as the back end used the external bayonet but the

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

I agree with everything you said. While increased speed, & hopefully precision, are are desirable, the reduction in sound is a huge plus. I've taken pictures using AF at events that are relatively quite and the sound of the lens focusing even made me jump ;-) Dave On 9/2/06, Douglas Newman <[EMA

RE: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

hita Sendt: 2. september 2006 04:28 Til: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Emne: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"? On 9/01/06 9:29 PM, "Joseph Tainter", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > O find that I can't get excited about having a motor in the lens. What's > wrong with

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

Then tell me, guys, Why are the medium format optics so much larger for corresponding focal lengths and max apertures? Jostein On 9/2/06, K.Takeshita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Adam Maas mykroft at mykroft.com Sat Sep 2 08:49:28 EST 2006 > > >> 400/4 with SSM would be neat. Can't see any good r

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

--- Joseph Tainter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Is anyone else not worked up over this? I'm not worked up about it either. If it will work on existing Pentax bodies, I think it's a nice feature (but not important). If these lenses will initially autofocus ONLY on the K10D, I think it is a stupid choice

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On Sep 2, 2006, at 7:51 AM, graywolf wrote: > Supersonic means just above the human hearing range, ultrasonic means > far above it but below the range of radio waves. Usually that is > something like 15kc to 30kc for supersonic, and 30kc to 100kc for > ultrasonic waves. It is the frequency that i

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

Toralf Lund wrote: >>But it IS driven by ultrasonic frequency AC. > > My point is that an AC frequency can't be "ultrasonic" since electricity > isn't sound. The vibration in a piezoelectric setup, on the other hand, > in a way is. > > - Toralf > Then there are no USM motors by your definitio

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

Supersonic means just above the human hearing range, ultrasonic means far above it but below the range of radio waves. Usually that is something like 15kc to 30kc for supersonic, and 30kc to 100kc for ultrasonic waves. It is the frequency that is important to the label, not the media. Note that

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On 03/09/06, graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Supersonic means just above the human hearing range, ultrasonic means > far above it but below the range of radio waves. Usually that is > something like 15kc to 30kc for supersonic, and 30kc to 100kc for > ultrasonic waves. It is the frequency tha

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On 9/02/06 10:49 AM, "Adam Maas", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So there is > good reason for this terminology. And Canon's marketing machine probably is at work here. Ultrasonic sounds good. The next term they might use would be "turbo" :-). Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.n

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

At 09:38 PM 2/09/2006, Jostein wrote: >On 9/2/06, Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I really hope for a 400/4. It is about the longest and fastest lens > that can > > be hand-held. With the 1,5X multiplication with the DSLR bodies, and > perhaps > > an AF 1,4X converter, it would be a kil

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

On 03/09/06, K.Takeshita <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, I am curious about the size of the coming DFAs. > DA's image circle is a bit larger than that required for APS-H in order to > cover the sensor movement (SR). > If DFAs ever take into account the future FF, they have to cover larger >

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On 03/09/06, Toralf Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But it IS driven by ultrasonic frequency AC. > My point is that an AC frequency can't be "ultrasonic" since electricity > isn't sound. The vibration in a piezoelectric setup, on the other hand, > in a way is. USM units are driven my an AC cur

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

On 9/02/06 10:19 AM, "K.Takeshita", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Exactly. After certain size (say 200mm or so), there is no reason to make it > a DA. > Still some hope for FF wishers :-). Actually, I am curious about the size of the coming DFAs. DA's image circle is a bit larger than that requir

SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

Adam Maas mykroft at mykroft.com Sat Sep 2 08:49:28 EST 2006 >> 400/4 with SSM would be neat. Can't see any good reason to make it >> DFA, though. DA will make it smaller, cheaper and just as good. >> >> >> Jostein >> > Actually, the size constraints on a 400 are all in the glass diameter > (f

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

> > But it IS driven by ultrasonic frequency AC. My point is that an AC frequency can't be "ultrasonic" since electricity isn't sound. The vibration in a piezoelectric setup, on the other hand, in a way is. - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/lis

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

On 02/09/06, Jostein Øksne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/2/06, Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I really hope for a 400/4. It is about the longest and fastest lens that can > > be hand-held. With the 1,5X multiplication with the DSLR bodies, and perhaps > > an AF 1,4X converter, it wou

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

>> I was referring to the gears of the Pentax AF setup... >> > > Yeah, it's "really" noisy . :-) > Maybe the gears are noisy, but the motor itself is noisy, too... - Toralf -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

Jostein Øksne wrote: > On 9/2/06, Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>I really hope for a 400/4. It is about the longest and fastest lens that can >>be hand-held. With the 1,5X multiplication with the DSLR bodies, and perhaps >>an AF 1,4X converter, it would be a killer outfit! > > > 400/4

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

David Savage wrote: >My fervent hope is that the FA lenses that have been discontinued in >the last 2-3 years, such as the FA80-200mm f2.8 & FA200mm f4 macro, >are going through a re-design to take advantage of the new (to Pentax) >"USM" technology. The DA*50-135/2.8 is probably the DSLR replacem

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

Toralf Lund wrote: >>On the low-end, AFD was replaceed by the micro-motor drive, which is >>faster with small, light lenses but not powerful enough for anything >>heavy. It's essentially a small high-speed motor. >> > > It's essentially a normal DC motor with an ironless core, isn't it? (Or >

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On 9/02/06 9:31 AM, "Toralf Lund", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was referring to the gears of the Pentax AF setup... Yeah, it's "really" noisy . :-) Ken -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

>> Seems to me this all makes it similar in functionality to a traditional >> step(per) motor. Technically it is even more closely related to a >> piezoelectric motor, although I don't believe it's exactly the same thing. >> >> Both of which can come in packages that are identical to a traditional

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

K.Takeshita wrote: > On 9/02/06 8:40 AM, "Toralf Lund", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Both of which can come in packages that are identical to a traditional >> DC motor, and could as far as I can tell be used in an in-body motor AF >> system - which would cancel out the need for the traditio

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

Out of 13 lenses projected until 2006, 11 are DA lenses, even the upcoming f/2.8 zooms. Right now I find it hard to believe we will see any more DFA lenses at all. Jostein On 9/2/06, David Savage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My fervent hope is that the FA lenses that have been discontinued in >

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

On 9/2/06, Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I really hope for a 400/4. It is about the longest and fastest lens that can > be hand-held. With the 1,5X multiplication with the DSLR bodies, and perhaps > an AF 1,4X converter, it would be a killer outfit! 400/4 with SSM would be neat. Can't se

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

K.Takeshita wrote: > On 9/02/06 9:01 AM, "Toralf Lund", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> Noise is a different matter, as there is bound to be *some* sound from >> the screws and gears. >> > > No, no, and no :-). > It is really silent as no gears involved. > I was referring to the gears

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

> > On the low-end, AFD was replaceed by the micro-motor drive, which is > faster with small, light lenses but not powerful enough for anything > heavy. It's essentially a small high-speed motor. > It's essentially a normal DC motor with an ironless core, isn't it? (Or am I referring to some

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On 02/09/06, Toralf Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Seems to me this all makes it similar in functionality to a traditional > step(per) motor. Technically it is even more closely related to a > piezoelectric motor, although I don't believe it's exactly the same thing. > > Both of which can come

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On 9/02/06 8:40 AM, "Toralf Lund", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Both of which can come in packages that are identical to a traditional > DC motor, and could as far as I can tell be used in an in-body motor AF > system - which would cancel out the need for the traditional feedback loop. The versio

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

On 9/02/06 9:01 AM, "Toralf Lund", <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Noise is a different matter, as there is bound to be *some* sound from > the screws and gears. No, no, and no :-). It is really silent as no gears involved. Coty posted an excellent link and you should read it. Ken -- PDML Pentax

Re: SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

My fervent hope is that the FA lenses that have been discontinued in the last 2-3 years, such as the FA80-200mm f2.8 & FA200mm f4 macro, are going through a re-design to take advantage of the new (to Pentax) "USM" technology. I'll be very disappointed, if we don't see DFA versions appear in the ne

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

> I have used Canon USM lenses for > several years now and the focus is fast and almost completely silent. > Certainly, outside on a street with the odd car, you will not hear it > all. When I use my wife's *ist Ds, it startles me by comparison. > My original point, though, is that it sort of s

Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?

> >> It strikes me as one more thing that will need to be repaired >> someday...probably when parts are no longer available. >> > > When we talk about USM, as Canon term it, it is an Ultrasonic Motor, and not > like a conventional motor. > USM is not Canon's creation and there are many compani

SMC Pentax D FA* 400/4 ED IF USM (WAS: Re: Lens in motor or not? "USM"?)

- Original Message - From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >I would also by a 400 with USM if it's > offered, and I can afford it. I really hope for a 400/4. It is about the longest and fastest lens that can be hand-held. With the 1,5X multiplication with the DSLR bodies, and pe

  1   2   >