Photography innovations, Nikon and generally

FlowtographyBerlin

Did anyone ever check out the eye-controlled focus of the Canon EOS 3 film SLR? It was AWESOME. Now that was an innovation. That has for some reason not prevailed. Does anyone know the reason?

TaoTeJared

Did anyone ever check out the eye-controlled focus of the Canon EOS 3 film SLR? It was AWESOME. Now that was an innovation. That has for some reason not prevailed. Does anyone know the reason?

I had the Eos Elan IIe that had that - It was ok as long as you didn't look to another part of the frame (like when you are looking to meter elsewhere etc. It was amazing how much that actually happened! I shot some Nascar photos from the pits with it and it worked quite well. I didn't have it all that long (and a long time ago when I was just starting back into photography) so it is hard to remember how well it really worked.

I think they dropped it since the new AF systems were much faster and had more focus points and tracked better. I sold it long ago, and didn't have anything to really compare it to at the time.

FlowtographyBerlin

I think they dropped it since the new AF systems were much faster and had more focus points and tracked better.

No way! The EOS 3 had something like 45 AF points (I just remember it was more than 40), and it was really fast, too. I never had one like that, but my uncle had, and I kept borrowing it back then. Using it was really like magic. It was so much better than today, where you have the option of letting the camera decide which focus point to choose, drag-and-drop (center-point and reframe), or fiddling around with the cursor buttons.

Also, the camera was from the late 90s; even if the AF in total hadn't been good (maybe those impressions would change if I had a direct comparison with today), I'm just wondering why the concept of eye–controlled AF was completely dropped.

TaoTeJared

<...maybe those impressions would change if I had a direct comparison with today), I'm just wondering why the concept of eye–controlled AF was completely dropped.</p>

I think that you put your thumb on the thought. At the time it was really good and is one of the reasons why Canon knocked Nikon off the fields of play and made Canon #1. If it was truly better, they still (or someone else) would be using it. It would be fun to pick one up to play with and see though I did like it on the Elan I had.

My perception of the saying "They don't make them like they use too" has a whole new meaning to me now. After 2 months of cleaning out my 84yr old grandfather's house (that he lived in for over 40 years), I now know the missing link is the "direct comparison with today." Much of that old stuff he refers to as "well made" is actually junk in comparison to today. The only new stuff he gets now is from junky magazines and walmart that he compares it too. Top-end then is equal or less to top end today. Cheap products then are no better (and mostly worse) than the cheap today. The average cost products (mostly what he has) is certainly worse than the mid level stuff today. (excluding the obvious items, furniture, clothing, etc.) The big difference I see in stuff was that his generation purchased items they could use for a "lifetime" and were willing to pay more for it. Now we just buy stuff from cheap (walmart) or lesser cheap (Target) box stores and rarely consider buying the higher end products.

kenadams

I think that has in part to do with an industry that designs products to break or fail easily and fast. That way demand is created as people have to replace their broken stuff. Also, what's the perceived lifespan of a digital camera today, even the pro grade stuff?? 3 to 5 yrs I'd say, until the next big leap in sensor tech or whatever. That doesn't mean a D3 breaks down after 5 yrs, but it becomes obsolete, at least in our perception. So you don't buy electronics for a lifelong use.

Crazy thing is, cars use so much electronics today, parts and replacement parts that need to be stored long past the model isn't even produced anymore. How long? Well, obviously the stuff is prone to degrade after 20 or 25 yrs, so your car has a lifespan that equals that approximately no matter how you pamper it. How's that for sustainability? Your beat up '67 Mustang will just keep rolling by then.

On a personal note, I once dug out a mint Leica M3 from my late grand uncle's possessions... took me all of 2 Minutes to go from "Leica? Seen it in magazines... ugly and waaaay overrated" to "hoooly shit this is so awesome". I guess you have to hold it in your own hands to begin to understand it. It's from 1956, and still works perfectly; doesn't even need batteries. Unless the organic glue in the rangefinder comes off (which I hear is not unlikely after all that time), it will continue to work like it did for the next 50 yrs as well - unless they stop producing films entirely of course. How cool is that?

FlowtographyBerlin

I think that you put your thumb on the thought. At the time it was really good and is one of the reasons why Canon knocked Nikon off the fields of play and made Canon #1. If it was truly better, they still (or someone else) would be using it. It would be fun to pick one up to play with and see though I did like it on the Elan I had.

I think there is no doubt that if the camera noticed by itself what you want to focus on (that's what it did and what worked like magic with the 45 [just looked it up] AF points) it is a great advantage over having to manually choose the point yourself or let the camera guess. That's the only thing I'm wondering why it wasn't developed further (or just continued), at least for the top-of-the-line models.

As for the rest of the AF specs (# of points, speed etc.), well that's a separate thing and most likely the systems nowadays would be better, but that doesn't make the eye-controlled focus concept less worthwhile.

With the rest of what you're saying about old vs. recent, if I got you right, you're in fact making two points about the issue (why old stuff often isn't as good as people think it was and why some of the old equipment is so much better than today's), and I tend to agree to both. :-)

heartyfisher

I had a play with one of those eye tracking cameras. So much fun !! .. at first.. but the problem is when you glance at the background or foreground to check the composition the lens starts focusing on it and then you have to look at the point you want to be in focus to get it back in focus.. wastes more time than gains.. it was fun but slower to focus and not really useful in the long run.

Msmoto

I have not played with this focus system, but, I can not think of anything which is less useful for professionals, photographers. I may be looking at the edge when searching for a motor vehicle to enter the frame, or examining the overall composition, or checking the background.

I think one innovation is the ARCA Swiss connection....so very much a time saver.

FlowtographyBerlin

I have not played with this focus system, but, I can not think of anything which is less useful for professionals, photographers. I may be looking at the edge when searching for a motor vehicle to enter the frame, or examining the overall composition, or checking the background.

You have to admit yourself that the usefulness strongly depends on the use case, not on whether you shoot professionally or not. I never shoot motor vehicles, so...

In your use case, yeah it doesn't make much sense. Plus, what @heartyfisher said, it's not like it constantly focusses on whatever you're looking at, it focusses when you half-press the shutter, on what you're looking at.

@msmoto: Sorry if this is common (forum) knowledge, but what's this thing with the ARCA connection, I've heard a lot about it recently, do you have any source that I could check out if that's something I 'need', too? :-)

Ade

The eye controlled focus worked great for many people, but worked terribly for many people as well. It was next to useless for most people wearing glasses, for example. As we all know, the complainers are always louder than the happy users.

ECF also added enough cost to the camera that in most markets Canon had to introduce two sub-models of the same camera: one with ECF and one without. At any given time, Canon dealers might have to stock 4-8 different SKUs because more than one model had ECF variants.

Over time, ECF became more of a marketing headache for Canon. Rather than differentiating Canon from competitors, ECF divided Canon's own product line. It made a segment of Canon users unhappy. It was being regarded as a consumer-oriented gimmick and it was never included in any of the Canon's flagship SLRs at the time.

At the end, I think Canon's Marketing dept. took a hard look at the sales of ECF models vs. non-ECF models vs. competitor models and decided that ECF was not worth keeping. But who knows, maybe it will make a comeback in the future.

heartyfisher

"it focusses when you half-press the shutter, on what you're looking at."
True but if you compare that to what we have now its still slower by at least half ..
And your eyes still wonder after you half press .. at least mine did.. maybe a dedicated responsive "focus now" button would have helped.. in functionality like the touch screen feature. Ie use your eye instead of the touch screen (mouse click?) to indicate where you want to focus as long as the button is held down.

Ade

Liquid lenses -- made from oil and water and requires no mechanical moving parts to change focus, etc.:



Interestingly, when liquid lenses were invented many years ago, the technology was first offered to Canon -- which promptly turned it down. Many thought commercial applications for this sort of lens would be possible anytime soon.

Yet now in 2013, liquid lenses are in many consumer products (such as USB webcams) and companies like Samsung are eager to put them in millions of mobile phones. And earlier this year we saw a liquid lens patent by none other than Canon, so for sure all the major camera manufacturers are spending R&D money into this technology.

heartyfisher

I knew about the liquid lens.. but it sure has advanced .. still I think its got a bit more to go to get to the quality needed for DSLR photography.. but it could work in conjunction with a normal lens, similar to a VR module. It should shrink the sizes of lenses maybe by half its length!