Eye AF

Daffodil Hunter

POTN Refugee
Joined
26 Nov 2023
Posts
78
Likes
165
Location
VA, USA
Image Editing
No
I felt this was a game changer in portrait photography. It's frustrating to find a perfectly lit, exposed, and posed portrait with OOF capture. There's no doubt I capture more focused portraits with my Olympus em1-II than 5DSR as u43 has Eye-AF and my DSLR doesn't. And I love to shoot wide open. I've had many pictures where the wrong eye were in focus and it makes for an interesting portrait.

I swear, I'm over GAS and don't really have the need to buy more stuff. But I think I NEED a mirrorless FF with a killer EYE-AF tracking body.

What say you?
 
Point of order: Eye-AF is an ambiguous term. In the Canon world it's Eye detection that you mean, which is part of tracking and yes, you for the most part need a ML camera for that.

Eye control is Canon's term for what the R3 does to move the AF point around based on where you look in the viewfinder.
 
Point of order: Eye-AF is an ambiguous term. In the Canon world it's Eye detection that you mean, which is part of tracking and yes, you for the most part need a ML camera for that.

Eye control is Canon's term for what the R3 does to move the AF point around based on where you look in the viewfinder.
You're German aren't you, šŸ˜‰
 
Swiss! Half.

And my fantastic camera has both Eye detection and Eye control! It's just amazing. Well, you already have Eye detection on your Olympus so you know.
 
I've never felt the need for Eye Detection when I had the Canon 5D IV and 5D III, 40D and 20D before that. Even with the current R5, I don't really feel the need for the Eye Detection for shooting portraits. Where this feature makes a significant difference, however, is in bird and wildlife photography, i.e., eyes with constant movement. If you get frustrated with OOF results for portraits, that's more to do with your technique than the camera and whether it has Eye Detection feature or not.
 
It's not that "if you don't have Eye detection it sucks" but that modern AF tracking locks pretty consistently onto whatever it is, and there's nothing better than the eye in most cases. I'm sure Canon could have programed Nose detection or Ear detection but the eye is just the natural one to choose. Sure, portraiture can be done without it. Of course it can. I still use MF in some macro shots. But with a camera offering this as a standard AF method, it works really well (portraiture is hardly a challenge for it) so why not make things super easy?
 
I've never felt the need for Eye Detection when I had the Canon 5D IV and 5D III, 40D and 20D before that. Even with the current R5, I don't really feel the need for the Eye Detection for shooting portraits. Where this feature makes a significant difference, however, is in bird and wildlife photography, i.e., eyes with constant movement. If you get frustrated with OOF results for portraits, that's more to do with your technique than the camera and whether it has Eye Detection feature or not.
And that's exactly right. Shooting at f1.8 in low light and I miss focus because I'm not using a tripod and the model is moving etc. But having the Eye AF (I use this as this is the official Sony Term who first implemented this technology - I think) with ML is a benefit for someone like me who shoots maybe once a year.
 
It's not that "if you don't have Eye detection it sucks" but that modern AF tracking locks pretty consistently onto whatever it is, and there's nothing better than the eye in most cases. I'm sure Canon could have programed Nose detection or Ear detection but the eye is just the natural one to choose. Sure, portraiture can be done without it. Of course it can. I still use MF in some macro shots. But with a camera offering this as a standard AF method, it works really well (portraiture is hardly a challenge for it) so why not make things super easy?
Agreed. I thought I read there's now animal eye tracking...not sure if it's Nikon, Canon, or Sony. But ear and nose tracking...c'mon man!!
 
Eye control is Canon's term for what the R3 does to move the AF point around based on where you look in the viewfinder.
My brother was in this research at Berkeley in the 90's - physiological optics...but this technology was to support the airforce and their helmets.... to aim missiles.
 
Canon's subject detection currently offers vehicle, animal, and person. And the detection ability degrades gracefully... if it loses an eye, it looks for a face, then a head, then a body, etc.

But ear and nose tracking...c'mon man!!
That's so the f/1.0 people will still have something to complain about!
 
Back
Top Bottom