Does it work if you wear spectacles (eye glasses) whilst using it?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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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 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.
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.The eye-control thing works for some people and not for others, it works in some situations and not in others.
Thanks, neuro, for that explanation.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.
That highlighted word made me think, that it seems to be already implemented in HW, what I almost couldn't believe.... According to Canon, they plan to add it to more existing EOS R cameras in the future. ...
This was my first thought, too. But maybe I got lost in translation...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.
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'm surprised they are not keeping the eye controlled AF as only an R3/R1 feature.
I think that's a misstatement by CR Guy. Perhaps 'existing lines' in the future, e.g. an R5II or R6III.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'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?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.
Yes, toggling it on/off can be mapped to any of several buttons.I'm not familiar with the R3, but I assume you can easily turn eye-control on and off by mapping a button?
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 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 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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
The EOS 50E approach was very different to the R3 implementation.I had it in my EOS 50E. Was close to useless, though.