# Eye detection still amazes me



## photoflyer (Aug 22, 2021)

I have the R6 set up so that the back button focus turns on normal Autofocus.  The * button turns on the animal / people / eye detection.    When shooting this image I initially used the normal autofocus to focus the head.  Then, just to see if it would do it, I hit the eye detection autofocus and was shocked that even though it didn't have a clear view of the head it still identified the eye and locked on.  Even more impressive given all the foreground and background clutter.    This is why I'm so keen on them making the R7.


----------



## Space Face (Aug 23, 2021)

That is impressive.


----------



## Dean_Gretsch (Aug 23, 2021)

Yes, very impressive. Was there much of an adjustment from the previous focus?


----------



## photoflyer (Aug 23, 2021)

Dean_Gretsch said:


> Yes, very impressive. Was there much of an adjustment from the previous focus?


There may have been a bit. It was hard to tell at the time.  This is cropped.  It was shot from about 25 meters with a 100-400 4.5-5.6.  I've been amazed at how well it does with people and animals in motion at a distance.  I've been able to get birds in flight that I previously would have only gotten with luck.  If I can keep the bird in the frame it will track it and if it can discern the head it will lock onto the an eye.


----------



## Winona (Sep 17, 2021)

What is the significance of the R7?

I am worried about the electronic shutter. I have my brothers Fuji mirrorless and it is weird losing sight of your subject. This is an older model so maybe this is extremely, but I was trying to pan with running horses and had no idea where they were after I pushed the shutter.

That R6/ eye detection looks awesome! Good subject to try it on.


----------



## photoflyer (Sep 18, 2021)

Winona said:


> What is the significance of the R7?
> 
> I am worried about the electronic shutter. I have my brothers Fuji mirrorless and it is weird losing sight of your subject. This is an older model so maybe this is extremely, but I was trying to pan with running horses and had no idea where they were after I pushed the shutter.
> 
> That R6/ eye detection looks awesome! Good subject to try it on.



The AF in the R6 has spoiled me and I am hoping they will make an APS-C R series to get more reach out of the lenses I have.

The Canon R series mirrorless still have a shutter but you can elect to turn it off and go full electronic.  It is eerie to do so because it is silent and 20 frames per second.  I used it at a football game last night and unlike a mechanical shutter of any kind it is much more like just watching a video as you shoot.

That said, a friend who started his career shooting NFL games on film once said "If you saw the shot you wanted, you missed it."  He taught me to plan and anticipate action shots.  His sage advice holds true for film, DSLRs and mirrorless.  

Example, if I want to get a running back breaking through the line towards the camera.  I'll ask myself what is the down and distance?  Is it likely to happen on this play?  If so I'll pan with the action and start shooting just before the shot I want.  I don't expect to see it through the viewfinder, and like my friend said, if I do I may have mised it.  DSLR, mirrorless, the same techniques apply to planning a shot.  

This did NOT use eye tracking and I think I was using mechanical shutter at this point.  I was following the action through the mirrorless viewfinder to this point in the action with no trouble.


----------



## Winona (Sep 18, 2021)

Thanks for this information. Really appreciated. I’ll be watching for the R7 as well-for the same reason. Always need more reach.

I struggle with high ISO and noise from my Canon 80D for wildlife. Part of the reason I’m interested in mirrorless. Plus the lighter weight lenses.


----------



## flyingPhoto (Sep 18, 2021)

Winona said:


> Thanks for this information. Really appreciated. I’ll be watching for the R7 as well-for the same reason. Always need more reach.
> 
> I struggle with high ISO and noise from my Canon 80D for wildlife. Part of the reason I’m interested in mirrorless. Plus the lighter weight lenses.


high iso and noise handling isnt always going to be what you think it is.  

Its really just a crap shoot.   I can set the camera to auto, take a photo that comes out low iso, then duplicate the shot using manual mode, but the same camera selected aperture and shutter speed, but the ISO can be 20,000 different, but no image change.


----------



## photoflyer (Sep 18, 2021)

Winona said:


> I struggle with high ISO and noise from my Canon 80D for wildlife. Part of the reason I’m interested in mirrorless. Plus the lighter weight lenses.



There are many other factors, (I have to be careful because somebody will jump in and disagree because I left something out) but it's really simple physics.  At least with the technology we have today, the closer pixels are to one another on a sensor the more likely the signal for one pixel will interfere with the signal of an adjacent pixel.    APS-C has more pixel density for the same megapixels.  

Turning the ISO up is akin to what electric guitarists do with their amplifiers.  Set the amp to volume 10 and you get a lot of distortion: noise.  Of course in their case it's desirable.  But, if you start with a very good signal to noise ratio, you'll still get a clean output even when you're cranked to 10.  Full frame starts with a better signal to noise ratio.

I have no illusion that if they make the R7 it's high ISO performance will be anywheres close to the R6 which is nothing short of incredible.  The shot I shared above was taken at ISO 12,800.  It was cropped and then resized to share on the forum.  I'd buy the camera again in a heartbeat.


----------



## zulu42 (Sep 18, 2021)

flyingPhoto said:


> high iso and noise handling isnt always going to be what you think it is.
> 
> Its really just a crap shoot. I can set the camera to auto, take a photo that comes out low iso, then duplicate the shot using manual mode, but the same camera selected aperture and shutter speed, but the ISO can be 20,000 different, but no image change.


Actually, it isn't a crap shoot, its math, which makes your scenario physically impossible.


----------



## flyingPhoto (Sep 18, 2021)

zulu42 said:


> Actually, it isn't a crap shoot, its math, which makes your scenario physically impossible.


I dont care what you say or think or what your "maths" says. 

Just like when i have my lens set to manual focus only, and the body set to manual, I get a far crisper background in an image, then if i had the body set to autofucus mode and the lens to autofocus..


----------



## zulu42 (Sep 19, 2021)

Whoah magic!


----------



## flyingPhoto (Sep 19, 2021)

zulu42 said:


> Whoah magic!


i truly love your tagline.... 

even though it implies einstein was smart...


----------



## zulu42 (Sep 19, 2021)

flyingPhoto said:


> I dont care what you say or think or what your "maths" says.
> 
> Just like when i have my lens set to manual focus only, and the body set to manual, I get a far crisper background in an image, then if i had the body set to autofucus mode and the lens to autofocus..


Well then, for you, I guess it is a crap shoot.  I stand corrected.


----------



## Jeff15 (Sep 19, 2021)

It must be Witchcraft.......


----------

