Are you implying the last film body launch? The EOS 1v was made until 2010. (debuted in 2000)
Patent: The return of eye-controlled focus, but for mirrorless cameras
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Well yes the eos 1v was launched in 2000 and my eos 30v in 2003 so a bit more modern design and lighter too
I bought the A2e (EOS 5) back in the early 90’s. The ‘e’ stood for eye. I bought the ‘e’ version as a lark since I’m a total gadget geek and thought it world be fun to play sith. I bought it with low to no expectations.
The eye focus was AMAZING! Absolutely loved it. So wonderful to frame an image as you want it, then glance at the focus point and shoot! The focus was good. The exposure would be good (since exposure was set with the framing). A total joy. I had a lot of fun with it.
Of course that was when I was still in my late 30’s and I could still see without glasses. I don’t think that generation worked with glasses at all.
Jim in Colorado
The eye focus was AMAZING! Absolutely loved it. So wonderful to frame an image as you want it, then glance at the focus point and shoot! The focus was good. The exposure would be good (since exposure was set with the framing). A total joy. I had a lot of fun with it.
Of course that was when I was still in my late 30’s and I could still see without glasses. I don’t think that generation worked with glasses at all.
Jim in Colorado
I have some mid class eye-control equipped film EOS and it works astonishingly well with -2.5 sph + -2.5 cyl which is IMO a medium strong glass with a little trickier geometry due to cylindrical shape.
If you use infrared which is far from the visible spectrum you can use very low intensities + "infrared photons" have very low energy, to low to induce chemical reactions so there are lots of reasons to see it as non-dangerous.
But today it should be easy to observe the "focusing" eye with a small camer with e.g. VGA (640x480) resolution and to evaluate the image for the position of the eye and the direction of its optical axis - maybe a "waste product" of eye AF with some tweaks?!
I just wonder if this AF could become precise enough to "trap" a little bird in dense foliage.
This being a typical situation, where normal AF often encounters difficulties, focusing on the right subject.
Which tiny part of the human eye will the system use to center on ???
This being a typical situation, where normal AF often encounters difficulties, focusing on the right subject.
Which tiny part of the human eye will the system use to center on ???
The EOS 5 was my first Canon and I loved it, but didn't care much for the eye control. Setting the focus point manually worked better for me.
But if it works well, eye control could be a nice addition: just look at a certain point and press a button to move focus to that point.
But if it works well, eye control could be a nice addition: just look at a certain point and press a button to move focus to that point.
I had two EOS 3 film bodies and, as an eye glass wearer, much to my surprise, it worked perfectly for me. Like others, I was surprised they never offered this feature in any of their digital camera body offerings. You could manually turn on/off this feature, as well, calibrating the body to your own eye(s). To my knowledge, no other Mfg ever offered this feature. I believe the A2e body was the first Canon body to offer the eye controlled focus capability and I owned one. Good body but the Eye focus feature only worked in landscape mode, not vertical portrait mode, so it's usefullness was limited. When they solved this problem with the production of the EOS 3 body, I jumped on it. While some users found eye controlled focus lacking, it worked great for me. I would think that any new version would be much more capable, given Canon's current tech capabilities.
Exactly!
All those being exited about this feature never used it.
The only application I can think about this being useful: Eye-AF with more than one eye/person in the frame selecting the desired one.
But the thumb is free to be used and doing so is a fast way of control.
Exactly; this is different from the eye-controlled autofocus of years ago. And the quoted section of the patent doesn’t even mention anything about tracking where the eye is looking.
I think CV is still too finicky to pull it off just yet, but this is an awesome idea as things evolve.
Interesting idea. Curious about deployment. In the new EVF’s, I’m looking at a lot of things. The histogram, the level, other settings, maybe focus is on one of my children based on their position, but I’m scanning the others to make sure eyes are open and tongues aren’t sticking out.
I assume you look at your target, push a button to lock in, then go about business normally?
I assume you look at your target, push a button to lock in, then go about business normally?
Maybe it should lock focus on the kids with their eyes open and send the ones pulling faces into the background?
More and more I am seeing people wanting a camera body to do more and more 'thinking'. At first, smart phones were the culprit in the demise of dslr's and now I see mirrorless tech being the demise of the 'photographer'.
Years ago, photographers had to really stand up for it being an art form or not in the eyes of the critics. Now with it losing it's 'craft' level of study, technique training, having an eye for framing and interest, where will the field go when AI is controlling more aspects of the shot than the human?
Why even have manual modes then? You might argue it's the future, it's evolution but what I see is the person behind the viewfinder is slowly becoming less relevant. So, will the new saying be "It's about which camera you buy, not who is behind the lens"
Meanwhile, film is still a thing thank goodness so there is hope there.
Years ago, photographers had to really stand up for it being an art form or not in the eyes of the critics. Now with it losing it's 'craft' level of study, technique training, having an eye for framing and interest, where will the field go when AI is controlling more aspects of the shot than the human?
Why even have manual modes then? You might argue it's the future, it's evolution but what I see is the person behind the viewfinder is slowly becoming less relevant. So, will the new saying be "It's about which camera you buy, not who is behind the lens"
Meanwhile, film is still a thing thank goodness so there is hope there.
Are you referring to moving the AF with your eye? How is that taking away from the art side of photography? I see it more as offering a more natural means of operating the camera compared to using dials or a joystick.
So, it is actually the camera being less in the way of the art, isn't it?
Last edited:
I’m strongly in favor of packing every “smart” feature into a camera body that you can. I’m equally adamant though about retaining the ability to turn them off when I don’t want them, which (for me at least) is probably most of the time.
Personally, I'd argue that what a photographer chooses to point their camera at is just as important as their technique. If modern cameras help to offset deficiencies in a person's technique I don't think that takes from the art form - plenty of famous/popular/revered images are not technically perfect but are relevant because of the subject or story they tell. A technically perfect image of an uninteresting subject/story, for me, is less inspiring than a technically flawed image with an interesting/compelling story or subject. To each their own!
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
