Patent: Eye-control focus in an EVF, this will appear in the Canon EOS R3

Canon Rumors Guy

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jul 20, 2010
9,312
2,079
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
Canon News has uncovered a patent that shows how Canon plans to add eye control focus technology in the upcoming Canon EOS R3 EVF.
From Japan Patent Application 2021-076832:
… an object of the present invention is to propose an optimum arrangement of the EVF in the image pickup apparatus, which is provided with the EVF and can suppress the deterioration of the operability of the image pickup apparatus provided with the line-of-sight input function.
Canon is using a small image sensor that is positioned on the side of the main display in the EVF and using a diving prism to direct light to this sensor. IR LEDs illuminate your eye for pupil...

Continue reading...


 

Mahk43

EOS R6
CR Pro
Feb 28, 2020
54
64
France
www.clarenc.art
Interresting to see that they use the aspherical geometry of the cornea and it reflexion to deduce the alignement of the eye.
I think the IR led are the main inovation compared to the old EOS 3 mechanism. WIth the IR led they can illuminate more powerfully the eye without disturbing it, and then, maybe avoid false reflexions due to googles. It may works well with soft contact lens but not sure with old rigid ones
 

H. Jones

Photojournalist
Aug 1, 2014
746
1,463
Wouldn't this system also allow you to turn the viewfinder on and off with your pupils being detected by the viewfinder, instead of a simple proximity sensor?

That would be nice for limiting accidentally turning on the EVF when the camera is on your shoulder, etc.
 

juststeve

EOS M6 Mark II
Nov 29, 2018
73
108
Memory has it IR was used for eye control in film days. I still have an EOS A2E around the house somehwhere which was the pinnacle of the tech at that time, the early '90s. There was also a lower priced Elan model which had the tech. Of course, memory had me initially remember the camera model as A5E.
 

PiezoSwitch

EOS M50
Aug 22, 2019
30
46
Memory has it IR was used for eye control in film days. I still have an EOS A2E around the house somehwhere which was the pinnacle of the tech at that time, the early '90s. There was also a lower priced Elan model which had the tech. Of course, memory had me initially remember the camera model as A5E.
Hopefully it works better than it did on my old EOS3 which was a very capable camera but the eye control focus on it never really worked that well for me and I ended up trading it in for a 30D. Ironically I found the eye control focus was more realiable on my Elan 7E probably because there were far fewer focus points. I really enjoyed the Elan, it was nice and light.
 

slclick

PINHOLE
Dec 17, 2013
4,590
2,949
Hopefully it works better than it did on my old EOS3 which was a very capable camera but the eye control focus on it never really worked that well for me and I ended up trading it in for a 30D. Ironically I found the eye control focus was more realiable on my Elan 7E probably because there were far fewer focus points. I really enjoyed the Elan, it was nice and light.
I too had both and agree with your summation. The 3 was a far more robust and dependable camera yet I did not use the eye control due to it being unreliable but did on my Elan 7e. However the Elan had more mechanical issues and was nowhere as field worthy. To me, the EOS 3 was the precursor to the 5D line. Sturdy, dependable, sealed and ergonomically balanced.
 

macrunning

Enjoying the Ride
Feb 12, 2021
186
478
WA
Quite frankly I would rather they refine the eye/animal auto focus they already have in the R5. Not interested in all these bells and whistles they seem to be focused on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrenchFry

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
421
356
Quite frankly I would rather they refine the eye/animal auto focus they already have in the R5. Not interested in all these bells and whistles they seem to be focused on.

Eye-controlled AF could well be more useful to a wider set of photographers than eye-identification AF. Many people shoot much more than just living creatures.

To me, for example, eye-ID AF is irrelevant for about 90% of shots. But being able to change the AF point quickly just by looking would benefit me in 100% of shots, as compared to having to take my thumb off the AF button to chug the AF point around with the control stick. When does it reach the edge of the field ... oh crap it's wrapped around to the far edge now, push it back... can it go higher? No! Oh just take the shot... gah too late! Quite often I just revert to central-point-and-recompose as it's faster than moving the focus point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Douglas

goldenhusky

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 2, 2016
432
253
Isn't IR bad for eyes? Especially in this case it seems to be directly pointed at the photographer's eyes to detect where he/she is looking at?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hollybush

goldenhusky

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 2, 2016
432
253
Quite frankly I would rather they refine the eye/animal auto focus they already have in the R5. Not interested in all these bells and whistles they seem to be focused on.
I would say it really depends on how well it works. First time I heard of eye AF (obviously not from Canon), I thought it was a gimmick but quite frankly it is more useful as it becomes more reliable.
 

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
660
371
Quite often I just revert to central-point-and-recompose as it's faster than moving the focus point.
I tried that for a few months but it only works if the len's "plane" of focus is actually a sphere around the camera, or if you're pretty significantly stopped down.

I used the EOS-3 successfully in the late 90s with eye focus. It wasn't 100% perfect but it was quite good. And it was worth it, because it'd give me a focus on something outside the center of the photo, as of this instant, no matter how curved or flat the plane of focus was, so focus was far better than the focus-and-recompose method. And, the camera then knew what the subject was and could try to expose it properly. (With central-point-and-recompose you additionally need an AE lock button to accomplish that.)
 

Peter Bergh

EOS M50
CR Pro
Sep 16, 2020
32
20
Isn't IR bad for eyes? Especially in this case it seems to be directly pointed at the photographer's eyes to detect where he/she is looking at?
IR radiation is heat radiation. Thus, it depends only on the intensity of the IR. Yes, your eyes will be damaged if you put a glowing piece of iron right in front of your eyes (criminals used, in some countries, to be blinded in this manner). I would be very surprised if the intensity of the IR in the eye-focus mechanism is high enough to damage your eyesight, even if you spend hours looking in an eye-focusing EVF.
(BTW, UV radiation is far more harmful to your eyes; that's why we wear sunglasses.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldenhusky

goldenhusky

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 2, 2016
432
253
IR radiation is heat radiation. Thus, it depends only on the intensity of the IR. Yes, your eyes will be damaged if you put a glowing piece of iron right in front of your eyes (criminals used, in some countries, to be blinded in this manner). I would be very surprised if the intensity of the IR in the eye-focus mechanism is high enough to damage your eyesight, even if you spend hours looking in an eye-focusing EVF.
(BTW, UV radiation is far more harmful to your eyes; that's why we wear sunglasses.)

Thank you!
 

hollybush

EOS M6 Mark II
Feb 1, 2012
58
33
Isn't IR bad for eyes? Especially in this case it seems to be directly pointed at the photographer's eyes to detect where he/she is looking at?
As said above, like any light it depends on the intensity. The trouble with infrared is that, because we can't see it, the automatic system which closes the iris down doesn't work for it. Thats why it's considered dangerous despite the actual photons having less energy than visible light. (UV, which we also can't see, has more energy than visible light, which is why we hear so much about the risks.)

Do you trust Canon to build the electronics so some kind of failure doesn't result in a higher intensity than intended?

In my judgement, even a small risk is not justifiable for such an unnecessary function, especially since in my case it probably wouldn't work well anyway. So I would certainly turn it off, but given the decades of history of lousy firmware from Japanese camera makers, and the fact that the hardware could also fail on, I wouldn't trust it was actually off, and will never buy a camera with it.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: SwissFrank

SwissFrank

from EOS 1N to R
Dec 9, 2018
660
371
even a small risk is not justifiable for such an unnecessary function
What makes you think it would be even a small risk?!

You think a world-renowned camera corporation is going to have any risk at all that their products blind customers?!!??!!

?!?!?!???!?!?!

???!?!!!!?

They'd be sued into bankruptcy for having even a theoretical risk. Even if not, their sales would go to zero.

Really, this is about the strangest thought I've heard from a human in weeks. There are real things to worry about in this world, and you're busy worrying about this?



> Do you trust Canon to build the electronics so some kind of failure doesn't result in a higher intensity than intended?

The camera display is already FULL of LEDs. They have been since the early 90s! Your entire display is LED in a mirrorless!!!

How many of those LEDs has freakishly flared, blinding the user?

LEDs have a maximum brightness at their rated consumption. If you give it more voltage, it might briefly run a few times normal brightness before burning out, but it's not going to cause permanent injury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RaPhoto and mpmark

hollybush

EOS M6 Mark II
Feb 1, 2012
58
33
Really, this is about the strangest thought I've heard from a human in weeks. There are real things to worry about in this world, and you're busy worrying about this?
I'm not worrying about it, but simply writing the camera off as of no possible interest to me among the many possible cameras that might be. It may seem unfair, but people use seemingly minor things all the time to winnow selections down to a manageable number. It's the way the world works.

As for the rest of your post, you apparently did not read my description of the dangers of invisible light. To give another example: extended exposure to UV from walking around outside isn't good, but in contrast some of the sterilisation devices that emit concentrated UV out of proportion from what you'd find in sunlight are extremely dangerous.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: SwissFrank