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.

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[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

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[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.

 

[NickAndersonPhoto]

But not everyone will want or need eye AF nor want mirrorless even, these are just tools.

Absolutely but these tools are why we choose a particular camera. If someone doesn't want the AF functions or a mirrorless camera they're not going to go pick the R5/6. There are plenty of less expensive options. Not sure I see your point.

 

[guydunnuk]

Absolutely but these tools are why we choose a particular camera. If someone doesn't want the AF functions or a mirrorless camera they're not going to go pick the R5/6. There are plenty of less expensive options. Not sure I see your point.

Eye Tracking certainly wasn't the be all and end all, and I certainly wouldn't rely on it as it isn't anywhere near as fast to focus as my 1DX Mk3 is. Yes it is nice to have when it does work. But as I pointed out, these are just tools, not everyone will use them as effectively as others. And this was a means to jump to a mirrorless system without giving up all my EF glass. I now have best of both worlds with a mirrorless body and a DSLR.

 

[Dave Williams]

I'm assuming the 1DX3 is a big improvement on the 1DX2 although the spec didn't look too encouraging when I read it at launch. I sold my 1DX2 due to the weight but with hindsight maybe I should have kept it and sold the 5D4 but on the other hand now I have moved to mirrorless I can't see me going back to using a DSLR to be honest, especially the 5D4 which is a great camera but doesn't have anywhere near the AF point coverage across the screen or the fps speed of the R5.

 

[guydunnuk]

I'm assuming the 1DX3 is a big improvement on the 1DX2 although the spec didn't look too encouraging when I read it at launch. I sold my 1DX2 due to the weight but with hindsight maybe I should have kept it and sold the 5D4 but on the other hand now I have moved to mirrorless I can't see me going back to using a DSLR to be honest, especially the 5D4 which is a great camera but doesn't have anywhere near the AF point coverage across the screen or the fps speed of the R5.

Well I get 16/20fps with the Mk3 and it is a hybrid in that I get some of the eye AF in live view and on the viewfinder (slightly different). The AF speed was 350 times faster than the Mk2 (according to Canon) I had the Mki before it and it was a vast improvement but I also wanted it for the video features too. When you stick a grip on the R5, there isn't that much difference, I still prefer the AF speed on the Mk3 and it doesn't miss unlike the R5 which double BBF is a necessity.

 

[Dave Williams]

The Mk2 was a huge improvement on the Mk1, the only body I have ever regretted buying!

 

[guydunnuk]

The Mk2 was a huge improvement on the Mk1, the only body I have ever regretted buying!

Regretted?

 

[Dave Williams]

Yes, regretted! It was too damn loud! Embarrassing in a public hide and enough to frighten most subjects away if they were anywhere close.

 

[guydunnuk]

Yes, regretted! It was too damn loud! Embarrassing in a public hide and enough to frighten most subjects away if they were anywhere close.

Even though the MkI was loud never had an issue with shooting anything with it, and now with the Mk3 you can go on electronic silent shutter if needed.

 

[Dave Williams]

Even though the MkI was loud never had an issue with shooting anything with it, and now with the Mk3 you can go on electronic silent shutter if needed.

Can you limit the fps too?

 

[guydunnuk]

Can you limit the fps too?

Limit the fps? You have 16 fps mechanical or 20 fps electronic.

 

[guydunnuk]

Can you limit the fps too?

You can set to High Speed (16 shots) Medium (10) Low (3) and also tweak soft continuous shooting modes etc.

 

[Dave Williams]

Limit the fps? You have 16 fps mechanical or 20 fps electronic.

Can you limit the number of shots taken...it's the one of the things thing that frustrates me with the R5, the only silent shutter takes so many shots before you realise it. I don't want to go to single shot though.

 

[Dave Williams]

You can set to High Speed (16 shots) Medium (10) Low (3) and also tweak soft continuous shooting modes etc.

This is what I'd like to have seen on the R5. I imagine the ISO performance is much better too, it's not bad on the R5 but it does need cleaning up even at fairly low ISO which means spending a bit more on software too.

 

[Normware]

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.

Great analogy!

 

[Copterdoc]

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?

I think the "professional" has the same value as before, assuming that a professional is not defined by simply time in the saddle, as the camera is simply a tool to be used to the best advantage. What a professional brings is years of experience reading light and composing images that tell stories. That photographer's eye is developed through experience and age and time play a role but some people with innate talents for this can be much younger.

A true professional has two district advantages in that they adapt readily to new tools and techniques that push their skills farther and when situations arise where the technology cannot achieve the desired results, the professional has the experience of age, wisdom, and of course frequent failures to fall back on in finding a different approach to the solution. A true professional never stops learning.

 

[dmiller68]

This is a great conversion. I do agree with one of the post above you have great shots of dogs.

I think the newer gear allows people to learn to be "good" photographers. To be a pro I agree with @Copterdoc it takes practice and experience. I think some times in my own case there is a false believe that you are good enough to do it professionally. While I'm trying to give a go at it I see some of the work by others and wonder if I can get there. Of coarse i think with the software tools as also "cheated" the system. You mess up the sky no problem just replace it. You want the supermoon shot just drop it in. The art of capturing the picture in the camera is in the past in some ways.

I continue to learn and one day hope to be considered a professional. In the mean time I continue to take workshops from those that are considered professionals...

 

[Copterdoc]

This is a great conversion. I do agree with one of the post above you have great shots of dogs.

I think the newer gear allows people to learn to be "good" photographers. To be a pro I agree with @Copterdoc it takes practice and experience. I think some times in my own case there is a false believe that you are good enough to do it professionally. While I'm trying to give a go at it I see some of the work by others and wonder if I can get there. Of coarse i think with the software tools as also "cheated" the system. You mess up the sky no problem just replace it. You want the supermoon shot just drop it in. The art of capturing the picture in the camera is in the past in some ways.

I continue to learn and one day hope to be considered a professional. In the mean time I continue to take workshops from those that are considered professionals...

I think your approach is good for the professionals as well. As someone who teaches another very serious discipline, I find that I attend the courses of other instructors as often as I can. There is always a different perspective to explore as others all have their approaches to the same core basics as well as tips and tricks that can prove invaluable. The key is being able to absorb and analyze the information, making your own judgment as to its value to you and your particular style. The ability to make good judgments comes with experience as with all things.

I do want to address the use of "software tools" for producing images. As we all know, the dynamic range of cameras today, even the newest have dynamic ranges far narrower than the human eye is capable of. It may be necessary to use these tools to combine several images at different exposures to ultimately obtain an image that represents the vision of people in the real world. Cameras can produce these HDR images "in camera" but they often do not achieve realism. Not all results or visions of the end image can be obtained in the camera. Don't forsake the power of the software tools to provide the necessary solution if the end product requires it.

One of the things I learned over time is that "some professionals" will make ill-considered pronouncements on what determines a professional skill, such as "getting it right in camera" to be considered professional. This is a good core skill and generally a great approach and skill builder but a very limiting outlook for the photographer who is required to produce images with dynamic ranges that emulate the human eye. Do not forsake the power of today's tools to accomplish what cannot be achieved otherwise. Also, as you say, do not use these tools to promote lazy habits and avoid skill development. JMHO

 

[dmiller68]

@Copterdoc I didn't mean to imply the tools where not needed or shouldn't be used. I find them very useful still learning how to best use them. I just think sometimes they are abused, and make thing seem better, different or no what the real view is. Not that there anything wrong with that as it is all art.

 

[Copterdoc]

@Copterdoc I didn't mean to imply the tools where not needed or shouldn't be used. I find them very useful still learning how to best use them. I just think sometimes they are abused, and make thing seem better, different or no what the real view is. Not that there anything wrong with that as it is all art.

I agree totally.

 

[Greg]

One of the things I learned over time is that "some professionals" will make ill-considered pronouncements on what determines a professional skill, such as "getting it right in camera" to be considered professional.

I agree with that.

I learned on a Canon AE1. Did not have much money on those days and every frame had to be a good one. I knew, by heart, how to combine shutter speed, apature, depth of field and most of all composition. I got complaints from friends and family because I took so long in getting everything right. Because of complaints I specialised in candid subject, still do.

Now, I'm lazy. If its not right its just another click to get it better. In fact I have to force myself to move off an auto setting. I'm doing my best to get back into old habits. I still spend time on composition and sometimes play with exposure.

Composition and exposure can be adjusted post capture, but it takes me even longer to do it on my computer than getting it right in the first place.

For instance, I spent the best part of 2 days cropping, framing, removing unwanted surroundings, adjusting all sorts of colour, brightness, contrast, hue, etc on someone else's picture. The exposure part could have been captured correctly and some of the unwanted parts could have been shooed away.

Getting it right on the spot is, in my opinion, the best method.