Updated EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II on the Horizon? [CR1]

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
fullstop said:
Read what Chuck said.
btw.: he was as kind, nice and honest a person as there is. Of course professionally he served as marketing representative for Canon and in that capacity he could not always tell "the whole truth". But he definitely did not lie.

Reasons:
1) "low demand": if not so many bought ECF enabled Elan 7E vs. non-enabled Elan 7 the reason may simply have been: "price differential too high", not lack of demand for the feature per se
2) "people did not use it" = implementation was not good enough back then
3) "complexity high + memory-intensive" = cost reasons (for Canon)
4) and Elan 7NE was introduced in April 2014. EOS 10D was already on the market, too more forward-thinking enthusiasts it was clear, that digital SLRs had arrived. Not much interest left to buy film SLRs.
https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film245.html

are some of my thoughts on the matter. pure "conjecture" of course. ;D


http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0912/tech-tips.html
Q: How likely is it that Canon would respond if lots of EOS-1D(s), 7D & 5D users really supported the re-introduction of Eye Controlled Focus? Do you know the story behind its demise?

A: Eye Controlled Focus in future Canon products cannot be ruled out, but there is no evidence to support the notion that it will reappear anytime soon. In the meantime, Canon will continue to study the market and gauge the interests of its customers in all sorts of camera features including ECF.

Similarly, I can't provide details on why the feature was discontinued after the EOS Elan 7NE. But I can tell you that it was more advanced in that camera than any of its predecessors. By the time the Elan 7NE came around, ECF supported vertical as well as horizontal camera orientations; it was much faster than before, and it had the "self-teaching" function that allowed as many as 20 individual calibrations per user for horizontal and vertical orientations according to variations in light levels, for up to three users.

From that description, it's fair to say that the implementation of ECF had become rather complex and memory-intensive, and Canon had received reports indicating that many customers were not using it for various reasons such as:
Their eyes did not move normally so the feature didn't work for them;
Their eyeglass lenses were too thick or they habitually wore sunglasses, so the camera couldn't detect their eye movement;
They didn't know it was necessary to recalibrate the system for each and every light level and/or camera orientation, so they couldn't understand why the system was only working every once in a while for them.
Finally, sales figures indicated that the majority of customers weren't willing to pay for ECF if they could buy the same camera, as in Elan 7N, without ECF for less. Considering all the obstacles, it's not too surprising to me that Canon eventually decided to drop the feature. But again, if you think ECF is worthwhile, then by all means make your wishes known. I am happy to pass them along, and you can also contact Canon's Customer Support Centers (e-Mail: [email protected]) to let them know as well.

Low demand not the main reason, huh?

1. Low demand.
2. Customers did not use it. (Low demand)
3. Cost to Canon (low sales = higher costs per unit). (Low demand)
4. Elan 7NE was introduced in April 2014. EOS 10D was already on the market, too more forward-thinking enthusiasts it was clear, that digital SLRs had arrived. Not much interest left to buy film SLRs. = Low demand
5. and Canon had received reports indicating that many customers were not using it for various reasons such as:
Their eyes did not move normally so the feature didn't work for them;
Their eyeglass lenses were too thick or they habitually wore sunglasses, so the camera couldn't detect their eye movement;
They didn't know it was necessary to recalibrate the system for each and every light level and/or camera orientation, so they couldn't understand why the system was only working every once in a while for them.
Finally, sales figures indicated that the majority of customers weren't willing to pay for ECF if they could buy the same camera, as in Elan 7N, without ECF for less. Considering all the obstacles, it's not too surprising to me that Canon eventually decided to drop the feature. = Low demand


Come on, man. From a business perspective low demand is the reason. People just didn't care about it or care for it. It was expensive to Canon because people just did not want it. People didn't want to pay for it. ::)

But, doubling down when wrong is your specialty. Silly.
 
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
fullstop said:
CFB: maybe you read and try to understand my post first before using the word "silly".

"Low demand" was Canon's interpretation. Interesting thing is, WHY demand appeared to be low to them. Think about it for a minute before posting. :)

LOL! Demand didn't just appear to be low to Canon, it was low. Period. Sillier.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
slclick said:
I really hate red fonts.

oh, really?

Canon_logo.png


;D ;D ;D
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
fullstop said:
i am not confused. Maybe i was not clear enough re the 2 types of Phase-AF:

A) detached, separate AF sensor [in the bottom of the mirrorbox, getting light via mirror/submirror/lens system] in DSLRs

B) in-sensor-plane phase-AF systems in mirrorless cameras, currently implemented in two sub-types: B1) dedicated AF pixels strewn across the sensor, not used for image and B2) DP-AF where each "pixel" is split in 2 half-"pixels" used to determine phase difference as well as in image capture itself.


ALL existing Canon EF glass is designed for use with type A) "detached, separate" Phase AF sensor. Especially all older design EF glass before LiveView was used in Canon. EF lenses have [different] sorts of AF drives and controlling electronics [presumably hardwired in older lenses and hard- plus firmware in newer, chipped lenses] optimized to focus best, fastest and precisest with DSLR-style Phase AF. Those lenses with micro-motor or Ring-/USM AF drive are *NOT* optimized for use in "LiveView"/mirrorless mode, not for type B1) nor for B2) DP-AF

Therefore existing EF lenses will be legacy on all future Canon FF mirrorless cameras, irrespective whether Canon uses EF mount or a new mount. These legacy EF lenses may and likely will be subject to various limitations in AF performance and functionality compared to new, "optimized for mirrorless/DP-AF" lenses. Most people seem to observe however, that even these lenses are not as fast-focussing in LiveView mode vs. regular DSLR-mode on eg an 80D.

Possible exception are the very few recent EF lenses with STM [eg. 40/2.8, 50/1.8, 24-105 non-L] or Nano-USM [70-300 IS II] which - hopefully - are better / fully prepared for use with on-sensor/DP-AF autofocus cameras.

I find it quite interesting and rather funny, how many folks who want to "keep EF-mount" on mirrorless cameras are solely focused on the "no adapter needed", the "mechanical mounting" aspect. Hardly any of them seems to have realized, that even without any need for an adaptor all their [expensive] EF lenses will be "legacy" and not as fast/well-performing in DP-AF "live view/mirrorless" mode as new, native lenses undoubtedly will. I have the feeling it will take another 100 posts and 20 pages of discussions until this start to sink in. LOL


See also following quote from Canon's own words. Of course they won't (yet!) say that EF lenses without STM or Nano-USM will be "legacy shards" when used in [DP-AF or any other] liveview/mirrorless mode. But if one reads a litle bit "between the lines", it is quite clear. ;D

This steady performance during continuous focusing is especially true with Canon lenses that are optimized for smoothest Live View and video AF:
• Canon lenses with STM (Stepping Motor) focus technology
• Canon lenses with Nano USM focus motor technology
Whether you’re using an EF, EF-S, or EF-M lens, if you see either of these technologies identified on the exterior of the lens, you know you’ll get the ultimate in smooth, positive AF performance when combined with Canon EOS cameras offering Dual Pixel CMOS AF.
http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2018/canon-dual-pixel-af.shtml

The difference in speed in 2018 has little or nothing to do with the differences between discrete PDAF sensors and main sensor based forms of AF. On an 80D or a 1D X Mark II there is very little difference in AF speed using PDAF or using Live View.

The primary reason Canon's current mirrorless cameras focus slower is due to the smaller batteries they use. It's also due to the fact that STM lenses are optimized for smooth (i.e. slow) video focussing. Canon's top EF glass still all have USM AF that is faster in cases where the focusing elements themselves in the USM lenses don't weigh more than an entire M-series camera plus the heaviest EF-M lens on the market. USM lenses accelerate/decelerate much more quickly than STM/Nano USM lenses do. The sudden acceleration/deceleration of USM AF is not appropriate for video AF, but most of the pro videographers using 'L' glass focus manually anyway, so it's not a factor to them.
 
Upvote 0

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,127
451
Vancouver, BC
@Michael Clark - I think that dual pixel AF is actually pretty decent when there is enough light. It still struggles a bit when it is darker though, and the raw speed on a DSLR in live view is still very slightly slower. I was pretty impressed with m50 AF speeds, given the price.

Because Canon doesn't yet have a pro-ish MILC yet, we don't have advanced af modes with dpaf yet, so we will soon see how that pans out.

@cfb - lol :) as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.
 
Upvote 0

Ozarker

Love, joy, and peace to all of good will.
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,933
4,336
The Ozarks
Talys said:
@Michael Clark - I think that dual pixel AF is actually pretty decent when there is enough light. It still struggles a bit when it is darker though, and the raw speed on a DSLR in live view is still very slightly slower. I was pretty impressed with m50 AF speeds, given the price.

Because Canon doesn't yet have a pro-ish MILC yet, we don't have advanced af modes with dpaf yet, so we will soon see how that pans out.

@cfb - lol :) as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

Apparently it got taken down. :(
 
Upvote 0