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

[mpmark]

Eye control AF will be the first feature I turn off.

Yup, Same for me.

 

[dirtyvu]

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.

Just so people know, IR means infra-red. which means it below the visible spectrum of light. which means it's lower energy than sunlight (longer wavelength, lower frequency, less energy). so if this scares you, you better stay indoors all the time and block out the windows and wear sunglasses 24/7. or better yet, never open your eyes to the dangerous visible light.

 

[Ozarker]

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.

While I love the bells and whistles of eye/animal eye auto focus, I'm happy that others are getting the bells and whistles they also want. I mean, eye detection for eye AF is a huge bell/whistle. So glad Canon is working on bells and whistles others also want.

 

[dirtyvu]

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.

you really need to stop this line of thought because it's not correct.

IR is IR. if you change the energy level, it's no longer IR. it's like if you change blue, it's no longer blue but some other color. If you change either the wavelength or intensity or frequency, it's no longer IR. and IR is orders of magnitude less energy than UV so making an analogy to UV is false.

if you want to extend your pupil thought process, your pupils also don't close due to UV. but humans do not go walking around with their eyes never closing. we have a thing called eyelids. if you're worried you should never open your eyes period. visible daylight is far more dangerous than IR.

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

So that’s why all my TV remotes have huge neon yellow warning labels on them. Oh, wait…they don’t.

No need to write off the R3, just get yourself some IR safety glasses. I have a few in the lab, for when the beamline of our 3.5 W Ti:sapphire IR laser is open. You know, something that can actually damage your retina (or light paper on fire, if that’s your thing).

Seriously, you can relax about low-power IR light on the eye. Medical/research/commercial eye movement tracking devices use IR to detect movement, have FDA approval, and have been used safely for years.

Or you can keep going with the FUD, you do you.

 

[Del Paso]

AF eye-control: one more reason to buy the EOS R3.
Could be great for hand-held macro, easier to use than touch-control to define the focus area !
If it doesn't work perfectly, I'll just switch it off and keep enjoying a certainly great BIG camera.

 

[Tremotino]

Seems to be quite little amount of rumors in the last weeks. Is the R3 so far away?
All the gear delayed? So much great gear has been rumored here... R5 high MP, R5 for video, R7, R3, all the great lenses...

 

[hollybush]

So that’s why all my TV remotes have huge neon yellow warning labels on them. Oh, wait…they don’t.

No need to write off the R3, just get yourself some IR safety glasses. I have a few in the lab, for when the beamline of our 3.5 W Ti:sapphire IR laser is open. You know, something that can actually damage your retina (or light paper on fire, if that’s your thing).

Seriously, you can relax about low-power IR light on the eye. Medical/research/commercial eye movement tracking devices use IR to detect movement, have FDA approval, and have been used safely for years.

Thank you for injecting some knowledgable sanity into this thread. I did think of the TV remote example, but of course it is not collimated the way the eye sensor presumably is (never mind your laser, which is also coherent). And Apple is also using it for their face/eye recognition on their latest phones.

 

[hollybush]

IR is IR. if you change the energy level, it's no longer IR. it's like if you change blue, it's no longer blue but some other color. If you change either the wavelength or intensity or frequency, it's no longer IR.

All true, but you've forgotten about the *number* of photons. If you have more of them, you have more total energy. This is unlikely to be high enough to do damage with a camera, but the example given above by another poster of a red-hot piece of iron in front of the eye is another thing...

 

[Joules]

I guess it is worth noting that you will be looking at a screen with bright control elements and likely also a bright scene on display when using the viewfinder anyway. So the pupil will not widen to crazy levels in the first place, so the usual risk from exposure to invisible light is already diminished.

Also worth noting is that Canon intends to sell this camera, and therefore has to go through a bunch of certification and legal steps to establish its safety for the consumer. If you don't trust those to properly protect you, you should probably closely examine all radiation emitting Consumer electronics you own.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Thank you for injecting some knowledgable sanity into this thread. I did think of the TV remote example, but of course it is not collimated the way the eye sensor presumably is (never mind your laser, which is also coherent). And Apple is also using it for their face/eye recognition on their latest phones.

Why do you presume the IR light is collimated? Although old trackers used on-axis, collimated light, modern eye trackers use off-axis, non-collimated light. The post mentions ‘several LEDs’ so I doubt the light is collimated.

The bottom line is that the eye-detecting AF system will not damage your eye.

You can choose to not buy the R3 because you falsely believe it will, just like people choose to not get vaccinated against COVID-19 because they falsely believe the vaccines contain nanotrackers or cause sterility or other such nonsense. At least your not buying the R3 won’t help prolong a pandemic.

 

[Del Paso]

Since I got vaccinated, I just can't stop buying all kinds of Microsoft products, and have even started collecting Bill Gates pictures.
If I only knew why...
Murphy's law: "the sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant.The population keeps growing".

 

[macrunning]

While I love the bells and whistles of eye/animal eye auto focus, I'm happy that others are getting the bells and whistles they also want. I mean, eye detection for eye AF is a huge bell/whistle. So glad Canon is working on bells and whistles others also want.

Yup, not opposed to other enhancements that meet others needs. Just my R5 has not been the greatest at animal eye auto focus. I have spent the last few months refining technique based on what others have had to say from websites such as this and watching YouTube. I still have a 1 in 10 success shot! given what others claim it would seem something is wrong with my R5. It finally started freezing up using just the eye animal auto focus to track birds (hadn't even taken shots). It is now in VA getting looked at. So hopefully Canon get's it fixed and I can start enjoying a higher success rate on my shots like so many on here rave about.

 

[Ozarker]

Yup, not opposed to other enhancements that meet others needs. Just my R5 has not been the greatest at animal eye auto focus. I have spent the last few months refining technique based on what others have had to say from websites such as this and watching YouTube. I still have a 1 in 10 success shot! given what others claim it would seem something is wrong with my R5. It finally started freezing up using just the eye animal auto focus to track birds (hadn't even taken shots). It is now in VA getting looked at. So hopefully Canon get's it fixed and I can start enjoying a higher success rate on my shots like so many on here rave about.

I sure do hope it gets fixed for you.

 

[dirtyvu]

All true, but you've forgotten about the *number* of photons. If you have more of them, you have more total energy. This is unlikely to be high enough to do damage with a camera, but the example given above by another poster of a red-hot piece of iron in front of the eye is another thing...

you keep pushing a narrative even though you know you're wrong. he even gave you an out but you refuse to take it.

he shifted the conversation by bringing up a LASER. if you can't tell the difference between a laser and an LED, I don't know what to say. I know you're trying really hard to sound smart by googling some articles but you are wrong about what this eye-controlled focus can do to the eye.

 

[Ozarker]

All true, but you've forgotten about the *number* of photons. If you have more of them, you have more total energy. This is unlikely to be high enough to do damage with a camera, but the example given above by another poster of a red-hot piece of iron in front of the eye is another thing...

Dang! Walk outdoors. Your eyes are constantly bombarded with infrared and UV light... neither of which are laser. Just stop it. Not even closely related to WalMart laser price scanners or military weaponry. You have a bigger chance at carpel tunnel syndrome or a broken hip. Stop.

 

[Ruined]

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.

Seems like bells and whistles is what sells cameras these days

 

[justaCanonuser]

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.

Have the same problem with my EOS 3 (still used), I guess it is a particular problem if a user wears glasses (like me).

 

[justaCanonuser]

Seems like bells and whistles is what sells cameras these days

It is old tech marketing trick for guys, see EOS 3, Elans etc. of the 1990s. Male geeks love long spec lists and absurd feature packages, the quality of photography itself is less important.

 

[Ruined]

It is old tech marketing trick for guys, see EOS 3, Elans etc. of the 1990s. Male geeks love long spec lists and absurd feature packages, the quality of photography itself is less important.

I have seen some fantastic pictures taken with APS-C kit lenses