Eye-controlled AF is coming to more EOS R cameras, but you’ll have to be patient

[whothafunk]

Eye Control on a R3 is a gimmick, not really useful for professional sports photography.

 

[MintChocs]

No thanks, I tried it and turned it off right away. Just way too distracting. You have your focus cursor which you can move around and then you have a second circular cursor from the eye control bouncing around. So distracting. Just so unnecessary , they should bring the swipe-able AF-On button to the R5 Mark II instead.

Does it work if you wear spectacles (eye glasses) whilst using it?

 

[unfocused]

It needs a lot of improvement. It works okay if there is only one subject in the frame. But totally useless for team sports or any situation where you might really want it. I will take the thumb controlled screen on the R5 any day over either this or the “smart” button of the R3.

 

[john1970]

When wearing eye glasses I found the eye control AF system difficult to use and I have turned it off. I know use the AF joystick to move the focusing point where I need to or use the smart button on the R3.

 

[entoman]

No experience either, but I wonder how they solve it when I look at the settings while shooting.

Often I don't look at the subject but at the edge of the picture to make a good frame, or what's happening around the subject then it shouldn't focus.

I think on the R3 it's controlled by half-pressure on the shutter button, so you can look around the screen at the settings or at the composition. Then, when you want eye-control AF to activate, you half-press the shutter button.

 

[entoman]

No thanks, I tried it and turned it off right away. Just way too distracting. You have your focus cursor which you can move around and then you have a second circular cursor from the eye control bouncing around. So distracting. Just so unnecessary , they should bring the swipe-able AF-On button to the R5 Mark II instead.

Yes, the 1DXiii/R3 smart controller is what I'd like to see on the R5ii, although I find the standard AF joystick to be fine. Most of the time I just keep the AF spot centred, and use focus/recompose anyway, although I appreciate that others prefer alternative methods.

The eye-control thing works for some people and not for others, it works in some situations and not in others. As Canon themselves admit, it'll take years to perfect. But it's a "gimmick" to advertise and get people excited, so it will sell cameras. I'd just turn it off.

Cameras these days are full of "extras" that I'll likely never use, e.g. 8K, pixel-shift hi-res, eye control AF. I'd rather that Canon devoted its research money to developing better sensors and improving the subject recognition and stickiness of the AF.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It would be great to see this coming to lower end camera bodies.
Especially if the "sensor" seems to be implemented already and if it is just a" firmware switch on".

It's far more than just a 'firmware switch on', it's a whole array of sensors inside the viewfinder and it's the reason the viewfinder of the R3 is so large.



As Canon says, it's an expensive system and I suspect they would need to make production costs cheaper before they put it in lower end bodies.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It needs a lot of improvement. It works okay if there is only one subject in the frame. But totally useless for team sports or any situation where you might really want it. I will take the thumb controlled screen on the R5 any day over either this or the “smart” button of the R3.

The eye-control thing works for some people and not for others, it works in some situations and not in others.

It works well for me and I find it most useful for shooting when there are several moving people in the frame (team sports, dance recitals, etc.). I have it on in just one my C# modes.

 

[[email protected]]

Importantly, I think there are differences in how people mentally frame a shot, and some methods lend themselves to eye-control, and others don't.

Sports shooters, some wildlife shooters, and many others tend to be monomaniacally focused on the subject. These people will tend to like the eye-control. I've become more of a composition shopper while shooting wildlife. So I try to get the tracking married to the subject, and then my eye goes all over the place trying to improve the composition. If you're shooting single frames while using eye-control, this is fine, as you can just return to your subject and take the next picture. But if you're shooting at 30 fps when you're composition-shopping with your eye ball, eye-control is utter mayhem.

One other thing worth noting: I love that Canon has been coming up with completely new ways to focus and compose shots. It turns out that there may be too many choices now, but I like that I can turn off the couple I won't use. I'm sure some people will use one method for a certain mode of shooting, and another for a different one. What I wanted to say was that I think this has actually improved my photography at a pretty basic level of "seeing." Without the tracking revolution over the past two years, I would not be focusing so much on composition.

 

[Maximilian]

It's far more than just a 'firmware switch on', it's a whole array of sensors inside the viewfinder and it's the reason the viewfinder of the R3 is so large.

Thanks, neuro, for that explanation.
I was honestly very surprised if those sensors are already inside a R5 or R6 II.
But referred to the CR post:

... According to Canon, they plan to add it to more existing EOS R cameras in the future. ...

That highlighted word made me think, that it seems to be already implemented in HW, what I almost couldn't believe.
I wouldn't have thought about a 'firmware switch on' if CR had used the phrase "to future EOS R Cameras".
But using "existing" sounded to me that the "sensor array" is already there and only needed to be switched on.

As Canon says, it's an expensive system and I suspect they would need to make production costs cheaper before they put it in lower end bodies.

This was my first thought, too. But maybe I got lost in translation...

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm surprised they are not keeping the eye controlled AF as only an R3/R1 feature.

I wonder if, "...we don’t wish for customers to have overexcited expectations for immediate deployment to other models," means that the R1 will not have eye control AF. That would not surprise me.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But referred to the CR post:

That highlighted word made me think, that it seems to be already implemented in HW, what I almost couldn't believe.

I think that's a misstatement by CR Guy. Perhaps 'existing lines' in the future, e.g. an R5II or R6III.

 

[entoman]

It works well for me and I find it most useful for shooting when there are several moving people in the frame (team sports, dance recitals, etc.). I have it on in just one my C# modes.

I'd like to try it sometime, but I suspect it wouldn't work well for me, mainly because my eye is often at a "non-standard" angle to the eyepiece, due to the strange angles and awkward positions I need to adopt when photographing insects. I'm not familiar with the R3, but I assume you can easily turn eye-control on and off by mapping a button?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm not familiar with the R3, but I assume you can easily turn eye-control on and off by mapping a button?

Yes, toggling it on/off can be mapped to any of several buttons.

 

[entoman]

I wonder if, "...we don’t wish for customers to have overexcited expectations for immediate deployment to other models," means that the R1 will not have eye control AF. That would not surprise me.

I got the distinct impression for the interview, that Canon think eye-control needs a massive amount of development before it can be trusted to be used by folk who depend on a camera to make a living. I'd be amazed if it found its way into another high-end camera in the near future, but it wouldn't surprise me if they put it in a consumer model, to use it as a testing ground and get user feedback on its performance.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I got the distinct impression for the interview, that Canon think eye-control needs a massive amount of development before it can be trusted to be used by folk who depend on a camera to make a living. I'd be amazed if it found its way into another high-end camera in the near future, but it wouldn't surprise me if they put it in a consumer model, to use it as a testing ground and get user feedback on its performance.

I suspect there are a fair number of R3 users who depend on a camera to make a living. It's easy enough to turn off eye controlled AF, as with numerous other features for which one has no use. I see what you mean since they stated, "At the same time, we’d like to improve the performance and usability." However, I think they could say that about many features. It would not surprise me if they omit eye control from the R1, but it would also not surprise me if they include it.

As I've said before, the Smart Controller works so well for AF point selection and AF initiation that I really can't envision something better.

 

[GAOP]

If it trickles down to lower R bodies other then the R3 and R1, wonder how much of a price increase the R5ii is going to see
Actually kind of wonder now how much cheaper an R3 would have been without it.

Canon saying "It’s also a costly device to develop and manufacture..." does make me wonder how much of the R3's $6,500 USD price tag is because of eye-controlled AF. Have thought about the cost of features I don't use since digital cameras started adding video capabilities. In 15 years I've yet to take a video with a DSRL/mirrorless body.

"Yeah, but your [marketing department was] so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. - Dr. Ian Malcolm, Jurassic Park.

Is eye-controlled focusing something that's needed or just a marketing gimmick? I don't know anyone in my network of sports photographers that has found it useful. Most spent a few weeks testing it when they got their first R3 and couldn't get it to work better than other AF techniques.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon saying "It’s also a costly device to develop and manufacture..." does make me wonder how much of the R3's $6,500 USD price tag is from features. Have often thought about the cost of features I don't use since digital cameras started adding video capabilities. In 15 years of using digital cameras, I've yet to take a video with one.

Software development for eye control AF was probably fairly involved, and there are hardware costs as well. I suspect that costs for video-oriented features are less (although that may not be true if codecs must be licensed). Like you, I don't shoot video on my ILCs (I have a Canon HF G60 that I use for that). Regardless, there are many hybrid shooters so it could be argued that increased sales from video capabilities offsets or more than offsets the cost of adding video features. I doubt that could be said of eye controlled AF.

 

[R1-7D]

To me, this is a big deal. After having the R3 for some time, if, for example, the R1 were to launch without Eye-Control AF, I might skip it and continue to rely on the R3.

The benefits of this technology cannot be understated for certain shooting situations. I've used it for shooting wildlife and events, and it makes the initial subject-selection so incredibly fast.

 

[Bonich]

I had it in my EOS 50E. Was close to useless, though.

The EOS 50E approach was very different to the R3 implementation.