Has eye tracking changed the nature of action photography?

[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.