Has eye tracking changed the nature of action photography?

[NickAndersonPhoto]

For years I have focussed my DSLRs using spot servo focus aiming at the eye or a part of the body at the equivalent distance. A fit gundog will dash around at 40mph and will follow a scent taking random turns in a split second. When a little younger, following this with heavy equipment was an easy thing. Now, when reflexes and muscles start to fail I can still accurately track a dog's eye without needing the reflexes of a sniper.

The technology in my new R5 allows anyone to accomplish something that took me years to learn. For me, in advancing years I see it as a boon but does everyone feel this way? I know several professionals whose technical knowledge, hard earned and much valued, has been devalued by camera technology that turns almost anyone into a very competent photographer. Of course, I love my R5 but what is the future for someone trying to earn a living from photography?

 

[Dave Williams]

Eye tracking has probably had little impact on pro photography, the damage was done when digital was made available to the wider public. When it costs nothing to take 1000's of shots the worst photographer on the planet can salvage one worthwhile shot whereas back in the day your average family holiday shoot was a roll of 36 pictures and you hoped a couple of poor shots that hadn't decapitated the subject were worth keeping but the rest were in the bin. That said the cream always rises to the top and the best will survive because they are just that, better than all the rest.

 

[MaraLee]

Go to your local Facebook Marketplace and look at the local 'photographer' offerings. I think your mind will be put at ease about just anybody being able to get truly good photos because of the current technology. If anything, I think it sets the bar a little higher in what constitutes a really great photo.

 

[TMac99]

Nick - All the technology in the world wouldn't allow most to get the action dogs shots that I see out of your camera. Being in the right spot at the right time, with the right lens, a great composition, and having the right settings in your fancy technological marvel is still an "experience" thing IMHO.

 

[NickAndersonPhoto]

Kind of you to say so Tracey, it's a passion and I'm rarely without a camera! Here's a few from this morning's stroll. Can't wait to get the chance to mix with people again and give my two a break from being the focus of my attention.

• Canon EOS R5
• EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/5
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 2000

• Canon EOS R5
• EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/5
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 4000

• Canon EOS R5
• EF70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM
• 70.0 mm
• ƒ/5
• 1/1000 sec
• ISO 1600

 

[Dave Williams]

I tried using eye tracking on a strangers dog yesterday and I have to say it worked very well despite the hair unless the splash was too big and the camera became confused!
R5 plus the 100-500 at f6.3 1/3200 ISO1600 and a big crop too

• Canon EOS R5
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/3200 sec
• ISO 1600

 

[Normware]

TMac99 hit it with one word "composition". All the new technology cannot replicate the photographer's eye. The first picture of your dog running to the camera is good, but the last one of your dog sitting in front of the trees is perfect. I looked at the first and said nice, but I couldn't stop looking at the last one. That's composition. No amount of technology can replicate/capture it.

 

[NickAndersonPhoto]

TMac99 hit it with one word "composition". All the new technology cannot replicate the photographer's eye. The first picture of your dog running to the camera is good, but the last one of your dog sitting in front of the trees is perfect. I looked at the first and said nice, but I couldn't stop looking at the last one. That's composition. No amount of technology can replicate/capture it.

Thanks Normwear, and that's exactly why I took the plunge and moved on from my 5D IV. Although I am pretty adept at moving that spot focus point around I frequently had to compromise or risk missing the shot. Eye tracking takes a lot of that concern out of the equation and allows me a little more time to consider the asthetics.

 

[guydunnuk]

But not everyone will want or need eye AF nor want mirrorless even, these are just tools. It's what the photographer does with them that's the difference, I mean I could put everyone in an F1 car, same engine and same performance. But up against a decent driver the result would be the same.

 

[MrSparks999]

I agree, the camera is just a tool, it is the photographer who sees the picture, then uses the tool to best achieve whatever it is they have seen or envisaged.