Canon patents new live view AF system

[basroil]

http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/11/canon-patent-application-offers-solution-for-live-view-autofocus/

canon's bringing back the pellicle mirror, that should mean full AF while shooting video, and none of this mirror up live view either;).

[tkbslc]

I don't understand all of it, but basically it still lets the camera do phase AF via the regular AF sensor while doing live view.

http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=188385.APN.&OS=APN/188385&RS=APN/188385


http://www.photographybay.com/2009/02/11/faster-autofocus-for-canon-eos-dslr-live-view-mode/

[tkbslc]

Oops, this isn't a rumor. The patent application is real. Meant to put it in the news sections.:oops:

[ofdphoto]

Looks interesting. VERY interesting.

Hope it sees the light of day.

[John_TX]

Usually something like this remains a trade secret until they're ready to go public with it (i.e. put it into a new model).
With this coming to light now, it would not at all surprise me if this new live view AF system was in the body they're releasing for PMA.

[tkbslc]

I tend to agree. Now will it be a new Rebel or a new high end cam that gets it first?

[Jpiano]

I tend to agree. Now will it be a new Rebel or a new high end cam that gets it first?

That is the question hopefully it will be something that i can afford.

[NeoTokyo]

At the cost of 2/3 stop, but hell it ought to be blazing fast!

[sapearl]

Interesting concept - I remember the pellicle mirror when it first came out on the Canon Pellix (1965), and even tried that camera in the early '70's when looking for my first SLR.

It DID work, but dimmed the image - back then - appreciably, and you had to purchase a really fast prime to brighten up the viewfinder as much as possible for low light venues. I could afford neither the body nor such a lens at that time :rolleyes:. I settled on the FT QL. - Stu

[_aravena]

Think things have changed? ISO 800 maybe F2.8? What about those not shooting wide open? I understand what Canon is doing, creating a P&S SLR but at what light lost cost?

[sapearl]

I agree aravena - I'm sure they can make it work, but it will likely have a number of limitations that serious pros and others won't really want to tolerate. Hopefully I'm wrong though so they'd be in the position of introducing a nice knockout product ;).

[KenjiS]

Interesting concept - I remember the pellicle mirror when it first came out on the Canon Pellix (1965), and even tried that camera in the early '70's when looking for my first SLR.

It DID work, but dimmed the image - back then - appreciably, and you had to purchase a really fast prime to brighten up the viewfinder as much as possible for low light venues. I could afford neither the body nor such a lens at that time :rolleyes:. I settled on the FT QL. - Stu


You know I was very recently thinking of the Pellix and some of the later Pellicle mirror designs [EOS-1 RT, Nikon had a version of the F3 with one] and thinking about how it could be used in this way to make a much lighter weight camera

THey have a lot of advantages, Completely eliminating the largest source of vibration in an slr design is one of them

And also given the advent of Digital and AF, in a consumer camera [As seen by Olympus] a big bright viewfinder isnt a -necessity- like it used to be...people dont rely on it for focusing so much anymore...so long as they get the basics of what they see down thats generally good enough

Just so long as theres a version with a normal mirror for those aspiring photographers who actually care :D