Eye Control AF in the EOS3 - does it work for you? Or should I rather go for an EOS1V?

[albireo]

Dear all

I have a very precise use case. I'm looking to purchase a 35mm film camera with great AF for moving subjects/action. My small human descendant is becoming faster and runs everywhere.

I keep reading that late Canon EOS were fantastic in terms of AF, and I'm currently torn between an EOS 3 and an EOS 1V.

This is my baseline knowledge so far

• both the EOS3 and the EOS1V have 45 AF points
• the EOS3 has eye control AF, the EOS1V doesn't
• the AF processor in the EOS1V is slightly newer and the AF is slightly faster in the EOS1V

Given the above (and please correct it if inaccurate) I am torn. I've never used eye control AF. If it works as advertised, it seems like a sealed deal. But the question is: does it work? If it does, why does the EOS1V, one of the pinnacles of 35mm SLR camera technology, not have it? Was eye control AF considered a gimmick and abandoned?

For the record, I sometimes wear spectacles. I mostly wear contacts though. Does eye-control work for those of you wearing contact lenses?

Is there a strong argument for getting an EOS 1V instead and live happily? I see this has 45 points. Presumably, the only difference w.r.t. the EOS3 is that I would have to select the first with some hand switch/dial and then then camera would start tracking the running half-pint sized human? Or am I missing something? Does the AF in the EOS1V do something that the AF in the EOS3 does not do?

A few more details:

• I will only, exclusively use ONE lens with it. Possibly a 40mm f/2.8 USM, a 50mm f/1.8 USM or an 85mm f/1.8 USM. I'm not buying into a system, I'm just getting a sophisticated fast AF 'point and shoot' set up.
• I am not concerned about sophistication of the metering system, I mostly use MF cameras without meter and I'm happy enough with a decent in camera centre-weighted meter.
• I am aware the EOS1V is heavier. Weight is not an issue, I will carry it in a small backpack at all times.
• I am very, very keen on a great viewfinder with good magnification. My Olympus OM2n has spoiled me in this regard. I cannot compose in the tiny viewfinders some mid-range 90s SLRs have. If the EOS1V has a much better viewfinder than the EOS3, this will be a massive plus.

Many thanks for any insights

 

[film_man]

It does not work with glasses. I don't know about contacts but my guess is it won't. In any case you have to drop the number of AF points to 11 from 45 or you just will never get what you're exactly getting. I had the 3, I had the 30E (which also has eye focus). In the end it is more a gimmick than useful. You will need to spend a fair bit of time training it (run the setup procedure a dozen times on both orientations). And it will still miss once in a while. Personally I find focus/recompose fast than hoping it will get it right.

So..what I'm saying is don't bother. I would also say that I would not worry about the AF speed between the 3 and 1V. They are both really fast. Both will more likely be limited by the AF speed of the lens. So while the 85/1.8 may be theoretically faster on the 1V, I doubt the 40 and 50 STM lenses will be different.

As someone that has owned loads of EOS cameras, I preferred the 1V finder to the 3 (it just is bigger and nicer) but did not like the weight & extra size. That is not saying the 3 viewfinder is bad, it is excellent compared to most cameras but the 1 series just has that little bit extra. I eventually split the difference and got a 1N which is effeticaly a 1V with slower AF (but I still found it plenty fast). Also...1V = 2x the price of the EOS 3 which is 2x the price of the 1N.

 

[Mike Sowsun]

I have both cameras, but rarely use either one. I would get the EOS-1V for the adjustable eyepiece diopter control and better build.

Most people say the eye control AF is more of a gimmick. The EOS-1 is only slightly larger and heavier with the standard grip. (150g heavier)

Both cameras can use any of the optional grips for more battery life, or frame speed.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

The last gen of Canon cameras are all fast, even the Rebel T2. I was never that fond of the 3. I never used the eye control. Back when I had one I preferred the 1n I also had. I don’t think there is really a choice. Get the 1v.

 

[MattKing]

I think you will find that the eye control focus works for some, and doesn't work for others. And generally speaking, you can't tell whether it will work for you unless you try it for a bit.
In my case, it works for me (an EOS Elan 7e) both when I don't wear my glasses, and when I do (two separate calibration settings). And it works really well!
As I expect you can appreciate, a feature that would only work for some potential customers, who cannot be easily identified before purchase, is a retailer and manufacturer's worst nightmare. My understanding is it is for that reason that the feature didn't make its way into the early and later Canon DSLRs. I'm not sure if it has come back into use.
If you are making a purchase decision based on the feature, I'd suggest that you be sure you have a right of return.

 

[albireo]

Ah excellent thanks. This is exactly the kind of insight I was hoping to get.

The last gen of Canon cameras are all fast, even the Rebel T2. I was never that fond of the 3. I never used the eye control. Back when I had one I preferred the 1n I also had. I don’t think there is really a choice. Get the 1v.

Can I ask you why you weren't fond of it Patrick?

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Ah excellent thanks. This is exactly the kind of insight I was hoping to get.



Can I ask you why you weren't fond of it Patrick?

The 3 seemed to miss focus every now and then, and the 1n felt more solid. Keep in mind the 3 was the first camera Canon made with that huge field of focus points. Only the middle ones were any good IIRC (cross type). You'd have to look to see if the 1v was better in that regard but I would seriously doubt if it wasn't. The Canon 1 series are really on another level. I've been thinking about getting a 1v myself since my 1n looks like it has been through a war, plus they won't ever make a better film camera than the 1v. Like I said, easy choice.

 

[albireo]

I think you will find that the eye control focus works for some, and doesn't work for others. And generally speaking, you can't tell whether it will work for you unless you try it for a bit.
In my case, it works for me (an EOS Elan 7e) both when I don't wear my glasses, and when I do (two separate calibration settings)

Can you keep both in memory or do you need to recalibrate?

 

[MattKing]

Can you keep both in memory or do you need to recalibrate?

My camera has room for five.
From the manual:

 

[MattKing]

Here are the additional "tips" from the manual:

 

[Les Sarile]

I ran far more rolls of film through the EOS3 then I did the EOS1V and used ECF. Just to be sure, I still don't wear glasses or contacts if that is/was an issue. Having scanned the thousands of frames I shot with both, I have never seen one that was not critically focused even those taken in dark settings. I also used the 550EX which helps in completely dark settings and autofocus is acquired near instantly. I even used some slow Tamron zooms with 2X teleconverters and both AF works albeit noticeably slower then my L series zooms with teleconverters. About the only concern I had with the EOS3 was that it used an IR film indexing device that was known to be a problem with IR film. Unfortunately, I never got to try IR film. The film loading and advance mechanism on the EOS3 was flawless as I shot many partial rolls and reinstalled them without burning a frame. I don't recall trying that on the EOS1V as I had spare cameras by then.

 

[Oren Grad]

As I expect you can appreciate, a feature that would only work for some potential customers, who cannot be easily identified before purchase, is a retailer and manufacturer's worst nightmare. My understanding is it is for that reason that the feature didn't make its way into the early and later Canon DSLRs. I'm not sure if it has come back into use.

Just recently, with the R3.

 

[Joel_L]

I have both.

The eye control works quite well for me. I find that I only use eye control 20 or so percent of the time. The rest, I end up just using center spot focusing and recompose.

I bought my EOS-3 when they first came out and I always enjoyed using it. I got the EOS-1v more recently, I find now, of the two, I will grab the 1v.

The 1v has 100% viewfinder coverage, the 3 98%, can't say that I really notice in use.

The eye control has some uses for me, but in the end, I can get along just fine without it.

 

[albireo]

Thanks for the comments so far.

So I was able to find a local camera shop with a good selection of used gear and lo and behold an EOS 3 was one of the bodies on display.

It was almost closing time and the clerk admitted he knew little about analogue cameras. I was able to handle the camera with no batteries in, which I thought was still a very useful exercise.

It's a bulky camera for sure. For context, my 35mm bodies are Olympus OMs and Nikon. The EOS3 is taller and fatter than my F90X. Weight is in the same ballpark. It has a nice hefty, well balanced feel to it. So all good on the size side of things.

The clerk was then able to locate a 50mm 1.4 USM so I was able to peer through the viewfinder too.

I am glad I decided to do that. I had my spectacles on and, no matter how hard I squeezed my face against the viewfinder, I could not get the full frame into view. I took the glasses off and only then I was just about able to see the entirety of the frame, though the camera was off, so I'm not sure I would have seen the digital display Info too.

I found this puzzling. This is the first Canon SLR I've ever handled. I'm used to Olympus cameras (incredible viewfinder on my OM2n) and Nikons (pretty good viewfinder on my F90X) and I can easily see the entirety of the frame with or without glasses with products from both brands.

Is eye relief on the EOS 3 notoriously bad? Is the EOS 1v better in this respect?

EDIT - of course, it could just be that the shape of my face/nose is a poor fit for the Canon's eyecup wrt the Nikon's or Olympus'. Would be interested in other people's experiences wrt this.

 

[Laurent]

I was happy with eye tracking when I still had my EOS3, with or without classes. I used séparateur settings for with and without glasses.

I mostly used the 85/1.8 Usm

 

[Les Sarile]

Thanks for the comments so far.

So I was able to find a local camera shop with a good selection of used gear and lo and behold an EOS 3 was one of the bodies on display.

It was almost closing time and the clerk admitted he knew little about analogue cameras. I was able to handle the camera with no batteries in, which I thought was still a very useful exercise.

It's a bulky camera for sure. For context, my 35mm bodies are Olympus OMs and Nikon. The EOS3 is taller and fatter than my F90X. Weight is in the same ballpark. It has a nice hefty, well balanced feel to it. So all good on the size side of things.

The clerk was then able to locate a 50mm 1.4 USM so I was able to peer through the viewfinder too.

I am glad I decided to do that. I had my spectacles on and, no matter how hard I squeezed my face against the viewfinder, I could not get the full frame into view. I took the glasses off and only then I was just about able to see the entirety of the frame, though the camera was off, so I'm not sure I would have seen the digital display Info too.

I found this puzzling. This is the first Canon SLR I've ever handled. I'm used to Olympus cameras (incredible viewfinder on my OM2n) and Nikons (pretty good viewfinder on my F90X) and I can easily see the entirety of the frame with or without glasses with products from both brands.

Is eye relief on the EOS 3 notoriously bad? Is the EOS 1v better in this respect?

EDIT - of course, it could just be that the shape of my face/nose is a poor fit for the Canon's eyecup wrt the Nikon's or Olympus'. Would be interested in other people's experiences wrt this.

That is puzzling for sure since eye relief and viewfinder magnification are opposites. More eye relief = less magnification. The viewfinder magnifications are as follows: Canon EOS3 is 0.72X, OM2' is 0.92X and the F90X is 0.78X. So the EOS3 should have the most eye relief of the lot. The EOS1V is the same as the EOS3.

You can use the OM lenses on the EOS with an appropriate adapter. That OM Varimagnifier helps manual focus given the tiny VF in the EOS lineup as well as pretty much all AF cameras.

EOS1 using OM lens adapter and magnifier by Les DMess, on Flickr


It is a much bulkier camera then the OM series for sure. EOS3 with winder next to my MX which is the same size as the OM series.

EOS3-MX by Les DMess, on Flickr

 

[Tony-S]

I ran far more rolls of film through the EOS3 then I did the EOS1V and used ECF. Just to be sure, I still don't wear glasses or contacts if that is/was an issue. Having scanned the thousands of frames I shot with both, I have never seen one that was not critically focused even those taken in dark settings. I also used the 550EX which helps in completely dark settings and autofocus is acquired near instantly. I even used some slow Tamron zooms with 2X teleconverters and both AF works albeit noticeably slower then my L series zooms with teleconverters. About the only concern I had with the EOS3 was that it used an IR film indexing device that was known to be a problem with IR film. Unfortunately, I never got to try IR film. The film loading and advance mechanism on the EOS3 was flawless as I shot many partial rolls and reinstalled them without burning a frame. I don't recall trying that on the EOS1V as I had spare cameras by then.

This reflects my experience with the 3, as well.

 

[loccdor]

The eye control in my Canon EOS Elan 7E didn't work well for me, or with several photographer friends I talked with.

Caveats:
Mine doesn't have a viewfinder eyecup which lets more stray light into that system.
I often switch between portrait and landscape format and that seems to mess up its accuracy.

 

[MattKing]

I often switch between portrait and landscape format and that seems to mess up its accuracy.

A suggestion - consider programming and then switching between two different calibration settings - one for portrait and the other for landscape.
You probably recall that you have 5 different settings available to you.
But as I posted earlier, the system does work well for some, and poorly for others, and it is difficult to tell ahead of time which group any one individual will fall into.

 

[albireo]

Many thanks everyone. After much consideration I've gone ahead and ordered an EOS 3. The EOS1V looked very tempting, but 900$ for a mint condition sample and for a pretty limited use case sounded a little unwise. As for my former comments on the EOS 3 I tested locally, my guess is that the eye relief will be fine once I remove the huge rubber eyecup.

Can I now ask for a lens recommendation. Canon experts - which fast prime, either normal or short to medium tele, do you feel will really showcase the EOS 3 AF's capabilities? This was my initial thinking:

• Possibly a 40mm f/2.8 USM, a 50mm f/1.8 USM or an 85mm f/1.8 USM.

I really like the 85mm focal length for running toddlers. However I also like pancakes, and an EOS 3' 'point and shoot' setup with a 40mm sounds like a great option - provided the AF is snappy.

Once again: I'm only interested in using this setup in aperture priority mode with 'continuous + tracking' AF (this is how Nikon calls it, not sure how Canon does). So, predictive AF for moving subjects (toddler running about, climbing, jumping).

I can also locally source a 50mm 1.4 USM. How's that for AF? Is it usable at f/2 or 2.8?

One advantage of the 50mm primes, both the 1.8 and 1.4, is that I can easily source brand new copies. I'm really tempted to go for a brand new lens with 0 issues. The 40mm I can only find used, but I'd happily go for it if people have found it a better performer than the 50mm primes.

 

[pthornto]

I use the EF 85mm 1.8 and it is a terrific lens. Longer lenses are one area where autofocus is really helpful. I also have a 50mm 1.8 and it is fine but not as sure in AF as the USM lenses. My other lens I use is an older 35mm f2 with the older motor. It is a little loud when focusing but still fast and optics are great.

 

[MattKing]

I'm going to give you a recommendation that doesn't match your criteria. The 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens is remarkably tiny, and surprisingly good.
For those used to manual focus, it takes a bit of adjustment to get used to the "focus by wire" response, but once that happens, it works well.
For those times when the light is good, and you want something that is just a bit wide. And it is so small and light, you can always find a pocket or camera bag corner for it.

 

[albireo]

I'm going to give you a recommendation that doesn't match your criteria. The 40mm f/2.8 pancake lens is remarkably tiny, and surprisingly good.
For those used to manual focus, it takes a bit of adjustment to get used to the "focus by wire" response, but once that happens, it works well.
For those times when the light is good, and you want something that is just a bit wide. And it is so small and light, you can always find a pocket or camera bag corner for it.

Thanks Matt. That pancake was actually under my radar, good to know it's as good as they say. I like the focal length too and the form factor so I might get a copy.

There's no shortage of EF Canon lenses on the second hand market around here, many of them in seemingly good condition. Could be that many people are dumping them to switch to the new mirrorless mount.

 

[albireo]

A quick update to say the EOS3 arrived safely all the way from Japan. It's one of those lucky cases where the condition was really as stated. Stone cold mint.

I'm currently going through the 150+ pages manual, there's a lot to learn.

Simultaneously, I've also decided to go ahead and treat myself to a brand new 85mm 1.8 USM. Some EF lenses are still available for purchase brand new, though it seems to me only for a limited time.

In parallel, I've been able to locally source a 40mm pancake for a song.

I've run a few rolls of black and white film through it and all is as expected. One thing I've noticed is that the camera is not as loud as what I expected based on what I read online.

Another thing that is perhaps of interest to other bespectacled people is that, as anticipated, I'm not able to see the whole viewfinder with my glasses on, whereas I have zero problems in doing so with my Nikon and Olympus cameras. The eye relief figures by Canon are IME more than a little off. In order to use the camera with glasses on, I need to remove the plastic eyepiece. However, I can keep it on whenever I wear my contacts, which is most of the time.

The autofocus is close to instant, and close to silent, on the 85mm. It's pretty quiet, but perhaps a little slower, with the 40mm.

Other random thoughts: the 40mm is surprisingly sharp wide open. I wasn't expecting this. It's definitely in the same league as my Voigtländer 40mm at f/2.8, and it's smaller to boot.

I've started playing with eye tracking calibration and I've recorded an initial set of measurements in channel 1 while wearing my contacts. In my initial tests, the eye tracking works fine, but I need to do further checks: in one occasion, I'm pretty sure the chosen focus point was the one to the left of the one I was looking at. Perhaps more calibration is needed.

One question for the Canon experts: in 'single AF' mode, by default, the camera seems to make an automatic choice of a cluster of focus points of ITS choice. I thought it works great, as it's mostly picking up features of interest to me in the 45-point focus area. My question is: how does it do that? How does it choose what to pick? Does it just go for high contrast (eg frequency domain peaks) features?

All in all, seems like a great purchase - I'll be posting some further impressions on the AI servo AF and continuous shooting as soon as I have time to test it.

Kentmere 100 in HC110 DilB - 85mm f/1.8 USM @ f/2 single AF

 

[Dirb9]

The 3 (and the Elans with eye controlled focus) have lower eye relief than other similar SLRs, I suspect to accommodate the eye sensors. You are correct, the focusing system simply looks for the area of highest contrast. If you aren't using the ECF function, you play with custom function 17, which expands the selected focusing point to the surrounding points as well, so it's faster to pick a point you want manually.

The 40mm is a real gem in the EF line. I sold my Voigtlander 40mm after getting the Canon, as the Canon was better optically in every way. The only advantages to the Voigtlander were manual focusing, and 1 stop aperture advantage, but I found that the bokeh between the Canon at f/2.8 and the Voigtlander at f/2 were surprisingly similar.