[RonHendriks1966]

When DSLR metering sensors reach sufficient resolution, we'll probably see eye detect for OVF focusing. Now that could be very useful...

That next SAFOX module better have at least 100 af points to do such a job.

[BigMackCam]

Err... Why wouldn't you? Unless your self conscious about it or something. If you're shooting at 1.2/4 and you need eye in focus for a photo shoot then you're going to do what you need to do to get the shot.

Because Live View. I'm certainly not self-conscious about it (I don't see what there would be to be self-conscious about ), and I'd happily use eye AF if it was available when focusing through the OVF, or with mirrorless, through the EVF. But I don't find portraiture photography all that enjoyable or practical holding up a DSLR in Live View mode. Imagine hand-held Live View portraiture photography at f/1.2... better be extremely steady in maintaining camera to subject distance for that, eye AF or not.

YMMV, of course...

[BigMackCam]

That next SAFOX module better have at least 100 af points to do such a job.

For me, I don't particularly care whether Pentax offers the eye detect feature. I think it could be very useful for some folks, but let's be frank, we've all been doing just fine without it (and not just us Pentax users - but Nikon and Canon too). I do, however, think face detect and tracking through the optical viewfinder would be a nice capability... and more AF points would certainly be beneficial for that.

[ZombieArmy]

Because Live View. I'm certainly not self-conscious about it (I don't see what there would be to be self-conscious about ), and I'd happily use eye AF if it was available when focusing through the OVF, or with mirrorless, through the EVF. But I don't find portraiture photography all that enjoyable or practical holding up a DSLR in Live View mode. Imagine hand-held Live View portraiture photography at f/1.2... better be extremely steady in maintaining camera to subject distance for that, eye AF or not.

YMMV, of course...

Well I don't work in 1.2 but even with close 1.4 portraits I am absolutely forced into using live view for critical sharpness. Even using the big bright viewfinders of my film cameras is no guarantee.

Maybe I'm just not skilled enough or the way I take pictures is weird, I don't know.

[BigMackCam]

Well I don't work in 1.2 but even with close 1.4 portraits I am absolutely forced into using live view for critical sharpness. Even using the big bright viewfinders of my film cameras is no guarantee.

Maybe I'm just not skilled enough or the way I take pictures is weird, I don't know.

I doubt that's the case, and I'm not skilled enough to judge either way

I suspect it's just down to individual requirements, preferences, techniques and expectations...

I love to play around with fast lenses wide open, and I have shot a few fun people and pet portraits with razor thin depth of field, but most of the time I stop down at least a little, both for lens performance and to get more of the features in acceptable focus (also for more context from the background). Given that, I can live with the focus being a tiny bit in front of or behind the leading eye, since I have enough depth of field to absorb that unless I'm pixel-peeping in the extreme.

As for Live View... I've just never been a fan of shooting with it hand-held. It doesn't feel good to me, and I'm not as steady in my hold on the camera I'll happily use it with a tripod... but then, I don't often shoot with a tripod

[repaap]

I have to say that there are times when I worry about if I’ll manage to get eyes in focus or not, especially if one is going to pay for my efforts. There is a moment when I have that ’need’ for relying for something like ’eye af’. 8 or 9/10 I manage to achieve and usually it is really not that often when you have situation where you have to make the shot like that and you can’t have several attemps, for just to be sure. Then it is down to wether one has eyes open, half open, just one open and then ..... you know. And I suppose that what they are now working with, will be more than enough, just because already it is quite good.

[BigMackCam]

I have to say that there are times when I worry about if I’ll manage to get eyes in focus or not, especially if one is going to pay for my efforts. There is a moment when I have that ’need’ for relying for something like ’eye af’. 8 or 9/10 I manage to achieve and usually it is really not that often when you have situation where you have to make the shot like that and you can’t have several attemps, for just to be sure. Then it is wether one has eyes open, half open, just one open and then ..... other than that. No need. And I suppose that what they are now working with, will be more than enough, just because already it is quite good.

Interestingly, in one set of tests between one of the later Sony A7-series cameras with Eye AF, and the Nikon D850 without, they were more or less comparable in accuracy - i.e. the Sony's eye AF didn't produce appreciably more accurately-focused shots than the Nikon.

Things may have progressed since then, but so far as I can tell, eye AF is no guarantee of accuracy...

[Larrymc]

Interestingly, in one set of tests between one of the later Sony A7-series cameras with Eye AF, and the Nikon D850 without, they were more or less comparable in accuracy - i.e. the Sony's eye AF didn't produce appreciably more accurately-focused shots than the Nikon.

Things may have progressed since then, but so far as I can tell, eye AF is no guarantee of accuracy...

No but its a guaranteed selling point!! Whether its more accurate with an eye capture or not!

[FozzFoster]

Remember when this thread got a lot of attention? wow how far we come

[TedH42]

Remember when this thread got a lot of attention? wow how far we come

What is this thread about?


Oh, everything!

[Erictator]

Remember when this thread got a lot of attention? wow how far we come

The 100yr,100 posts contest has resurrected this thread, it's a miracle I tells ya!
Eric

[swanlefitte]

New rumor and then new thread. I think there are 3 continuing threads all with as many posts now.

[gatorguy]

That next SAFOX module better have at least 100 af points to do such a job.

RonHendricks, I think you'll have one less (faux) worry about the next Pentax camera. Reportedly the number of focus points won't be an impediment.

[RobG]

I do, however, think face detect and tracking through the optical viewfinder would be a nice capability... and more AF points would certainly be beneficial for that.

I agree - face detect during OVF operation would be a nice option, to make more creative framing easier. I'm still not quite sure why some focus features on the K3 work much better in live mode - isn't it the same AF system? (I confess that I haven't thought about it too hard though - I hardly ever use the LCD)

[Kozlok]

I agree - face detect during OVF operation would be a nice option, to make more creative framing easier. I'm still not quite sure why some focus features on the K3 work much better in live mode - isn't it the same AF system? (I confess that I haven't thought about it too hard though - I hardly ever use the LCD)

No, the focusing in Live View and OVF are completely different systems, and using different techniques. PDAF vs. CDAF (Phase detect vs contrast detect AF).

Phase detect (OVF) uses an actual separate sensor, while CDAF uses the main camera sensor.

Some of the new chips include PDAF sensor sites interspersed within the photo sensor sites, but then there isn't necessarily data at that site for the actual photo, though some chips try to interpolate the missing data, with a variety of success.