PLEASE bring back eye-control AF!

kfreels wrote in post #15476315
That must be it but it sure seems weird. Didn't all of the other cameras have the scale? I really don't remember a lot from the time but my Elan had it. I wonder if somewhere between 91 and 95 they decided that they just needed to bite the bullet and pay.

Now back to this question...I took a little tour(electronically) of the Canon Camera Museum...Here's the link if you're interested:

http://www.canon.com …ilm/chrono_1986​-1990.html


Anyway it turns out that there were 15 EOS model cameras preceding the A2E/EOS 5. This includes several models with a QD date back that were only available in the Japanese market and one oddity, the EOS EF M manual focus EF mount camera. The first one was the EOS 650(Mar '87), followed by EOS 620(May '87) through 630(Apr '89), 1(Sep '89), RT(Oct '89), 10S(Mar '90), etc...leading up to the Rebel S2(Mar '92) and A2E/EOS 5(Nov '92).

There are actually 2 exposure scales to consider, one in the viewfinder and one on the top LCD screen. Some of these cameras had no LCD screen. The first one with the exposure scale listed in the specifications is the EOS 1(Sep '89). The cameras(having an LCD screen) that follow vary as to having the exposure scale or not, sometimes in the VF but not on the LCD or vice versa, until the Rebel S2(Mar '92) which is listed as having both. The A2E/EOS 5 is listed as having both though the wording is slightly different: "Exposure Display" as opposed to "Exposure Level Display". I didn't check them all but the next few all say the same thing.

It appears that something was going on with the "Exposure Scale" with ALL EOS cameras except the professional level EOS 1, up to the A2E/EOS 5 where the scale was added but the wording was changed.

The wording of camera specifications is kind of sketchy anyway, so short of personally examining working models of all of these cameras(not likely), that's the best that I can do for now.

rrblint wrote in post #15479506
Now back to this question...I took a little tour(electronically) of the Canon Camera Museum...Here's the link if you're interested:

http://www.canon.com …ilm/chrono_1986​-1990.html


Anyway it turns out that there were 15 EOS model cameras preceding the A2E/EOS 5. This includes several models with a QD date back that were only available in the Japanese market and one oddity, the EOS EF M manual focus EF mount camera. The first one was the EOS 650(Mar '87), followed by EOS 620(May '87) through 630(Apr '89), 1(Sep '89), RT(Oct '89), 10S(Mar '90), etc...leading up to the Rebel S2(Mar '92) and A2E/EOS 5(Nov '92).

There are actually 2 exposure scales to consider, one in the viewfinder and one on the top LCD screen. Some of these cameras had no LCD screen. The first one with the exposure scale listed in the specifications is the EOS 1(Sep '89). The cameras(having an LCD screen) that follow vary as to having the exposure scale or not, sometimes in the VF but not on the LCD or vice versa, until the Rebel S2(Mar '92) which is listed as having both. The A2E/EOS 5 is listed as having both though the wording is slightly different: "Exposure Display" as opposed to "Exposure Level Display". I didn't check them all but the next few all say the same thing.

It appears that something was going on with the "Exposure Scale" with ALL EOS cameras except the professional level EOS 1, up to the A2E/EOS 5 where the scale was added but the wording was changed.

The wording of camera specifications is kind of sketchy anyway, so short of personally examining working models of all of these cameras(not likely), that's the best that I can do for now.

Thanks for the work. It really is amazing how things like this just happen by with little to no documentation. No one thinks of it as having any interest. Then 20-30 years later people try to piece it together and have a hard time. I wonder if it will still be that way 20-30 years from now. I know there are countless blogs and forum threads out there now that go into a lot of details of nearly anything you can think of, but in 30 years, what's to say that information won't all be deleted. Standard HTML documents may not even be readable by then, let alone information in an archived SQL database. And having that assumes the storage medium is still accessible. Think about how hard it would be now to read a WordStar document off of a floppy disk.

After researching those old cameras I have a couple of thoughts...Just questions really, not a whole lot of answers:

1.) What was so special about ECF that Canon decided that they needed to market two versions of the same new camera model, one with ECF and one without? They did this starting with the A2E/A2 and continued through the Elan IIE/II series, marketed the EOS 3 as a single model, then continued again with the old strategy on the Elan 7E/7 and 7NE/7N series. They haven't done that with any other feature that I am aware of...Anyone know of other examples(not necessarily Canon, or even cameras, for that matter), and the fate of the feature or commodity involved?

What was it about this one feature that necessitated a separate camera model? Why not two separate, otherwise identical, camera models for "with" and "without" green box and the other pre-programmed auto-modes, or built-in flash, or auto-focus itself, or any other camera feature? Why not offer a cafeteria style menu, where a customer can order any camera model and choose which features for it to have and which for it not to have?...This is in sarcasm, I know they can't do that...But hopefully you get my point.

In the past I have always thought that having an E/Non-E version was a good idea, but now I'm thinking that it is not so great from a marketing point of view. I'm reminded of when, many years ago, Diet Coke was just becoming popular and the Coca-Cola company was very nervous about why the regular Coke was losing market share. It was quite obvious to everyone else that many people were simply switching from Coke to Diet Coke. The company was not losing market share, they were competing with a new product that was being manufactured and sold by themselves. I wonder if Canon ran into this same type of problem with measuring sales of the ECF-equipped cameras that were competing with the same model non-ECF cameras, making it appear that sales were about half of what they should have been. This also makes me wonder: What changed their minds about the EOS 3, and what changed them back again with the Elan 7s?


2.) They split the two models on the A2E/A2/EOS 5 ONLY for the North American market, but expanded this strategy to include the European/Oceania markets as well as the North American market with the Elan IIE/II/50E/50, 7E/7/30/33, and 7NE/7N/30V/33V. They did not split any of these models for the Japanese market.

If this was such a good strategy, why not do it world-wide? The Elan 7/EOS 30 models appeared after the EOS 3 and of course the Elan II/EOS 50 before. They all followed the A2E/EOS 5 so apparently after trying to market the EOS 3 as a single model world-wide, they were in the process of widening the use of the old strategy again when ECF was dropped. I note that for some cameras, they also continue to market essentially the same camera under different names in different world markets. What does this portend for the upcoming(possible) reemergence of ECF with the 7D2E? Will there be a 7D2(non-E) as well? If so, will they both be marketed world-wide, or in a market specific fashion? I no longer think that splitting them into two models is a good marketing strategy. Why split the market and compete against yourself? Nope, I think that it should be: If you want a 7D2, you'll just have to buy it with ECF, sorry Hogloff.

I'd be willing to pay $250 extra for the feature, but according to the best information that we have in this thread(kindly provided by kfreels) it should not cost anywhere near that much to install a moderately improved version of ECF in a modern 7D2 and even with an expanded number of focus points(61 or more...Hell, make it 120...Let's really show the value of ECF by making it nearly impossible to choose them by thumb and forefinger) it should not increase the price of the camera significantly...Theref​ore keeping it fitting nicely in it's price point niche.

Let's face it, while ECF was certainly not a failure, it also wasn't the resounding, market-changing success that Canon had hoped for either. I think that, among the other factors mentioned in this thread, the marketing strategy of having an E/Non-E version of the same camera, marketed differently in different parts of the world, is at least partially responsible for ECF not catching on as it could have and should have done. So will Canon make the same mistake this time around? I certainly hope not, but only time will tell.

One possible reason it didn't make much of hit might be that it doesn't work well with glasses. I've trained my A2e several times, and it's still not very reliable. Since a large percentage of the people in the US wear glasses, that hurts the market some.

archer1960 wrote in post #15493301
One possible reason it didn't make much of hit might be that it doesn't work well with glasses. I've trained my A2e several times, and it's still not very reliable. Since a large percentage of the people in the US wear glasses, that hurts the market some.

Many eyeglass wearers have reported(here and in the past, elsewhere) the successful operation of ECF. This may be part of the reason for splitting the camera into two versions, but why only for certain parts of the world?

Don't give up...Have you tried calibrating with your contacts?...Also remember that the new version will be much improved and any problems that eyeglass wearers are experiencing with the old versions may have been cleared up.

rrblint wrote in post #15493432
Many eyeglass wearers have reported(here and in the past, elsewhere) the successful operation of ECF. This may be part of the reason for splitting the camera into two versions, but why only for certain parts of the world?

Don't give up...Have you tried calibrating with your contacts?...Also remember that the new version will be much improved and any problems that eyeglass wearers are experiencing with the old versions may have been cleared up.

Definitely true. I haven't tried with my contacts yet. Also, I believe the A2e was one of the first eye controlled versions, and the system likely had some tweaking in later models.

archer1960 wrote in post #15493582
Definitely true. I haven't tried with my contacts yet. Also, I believe the A2e was one of the first eye controlled versions, and the system likely had some tweaking in later models.

Yes, A2E/EOS 5 was the very first version and works only in landscape(horizontal) orientation. The Elans and EOS 3 gained portrait(vertical) orientation and speed of acquisition of the AF point by the ECF system, at least, and maybe a lot more.

Try it with your contacts and let us know here how it works.

archer1960 wrote in post #15493582
Definitely true. I haven't tried with my contacts yet. Also, I believe the A2e was one of the first eye controlled versions, and the system likely had some tweaking in later models.

I think the problem was one of how the glasses fit on the face and how they may have affected the eye tracking. I'm sure that some prescriptions could cause problems but probably not a huge number. I also know of some people who have eyes that move around a lot which I'm sure is a problem. All of our eyes do that, but most aren't noticeable. But the movement will vary with different people and I'm sure there is some threshold where it stops working.

Of course much of this can be addressed with much better algorithms, higher sampling rates and faster processing. The tech at the time was pushing the limits of what was possible.

When it came to the decision to kill it, I wonder if they just hadn't come to terms with the idea of a feature that may or may not work for people. Anymore, that's not odd. Someone will release a new app or gaming console and put in a disclaimer that says "this product may not work for all people" and no one thinks twice about it. But back then, you just didn't do that as a reputable business. It either worked for everyone or you didn't sell it. (speaking of high end gear, not silly Ronco gadgets)
This may have been the driving force behind the decision to fragment the lines. Some people may not like getting a camera with a feature they can't use and they perceive that they are paying for a feature that isn't usable, so they may not buy. So you fragment and charge more for the feature. Now those who don't buy it don't feel like they were ripped off. Of course this decision actually raises the cost of the feature. When you could have mass produced a million cameras with it and instead have to drag that number down to 150,000 units (just pulling random numbers out), then your cost per unit with the feature just shot way up. Now you have to sell at a lower margin to sell them because while the feature is useful, many will only pay so much for it.
I'm sure the feature then cost a heck of a lot more than it would now. I'm almost willing to bet it can be done now with a simple modified off-the-shelf cell phone camera - even the old 1.1MP models and some good software. Or maybe it doesn't even need to be that fancy. Back then, they may have had to push the limits of processor developments just to have a processor capable of doing the job. The processor alone could have been a defining factor. I'm sure they would have used the same processor in both the ECF and non ECF cameras just to offset the cost but they would have had to recapture it mostly on the ECF sales. Back then a film camera just didn't have a need for a fancy processor. But the digital camera changed that. And now we're at a point where we've seemed to stop chasing megapixels while mobile processor technology is just flat out skyrocketing. My little phone has a quad core processor and it is a year old and an obsolete model. lol

So I do agree that the decision to split the lines was a bad one and probably went a long way to the demise of ECF. But the alternative may have put all of the cameras out of their pricing points that they wanted to achieve. I don't expect that we would see the same split today. If they release one with eye control, they will all have it. I just really really really hope they do it with a 7DII and don't instead give us a flippy touch screen instead. Canon is due for a game changer as they are facing the first serious competition in quite some time and are finally seeing some declining market share. The mirrorless launch has been less than thrilling being late to the party and not really bringing anything new to the table. The 1DX didn't create any excitement and the 5DIII, while very nice, was delivered late and was no more than a logical progression. Canon needs something with some spark to get the spotlight back and this could well do it for them.

In my land of fantasy, that is exactly what is going on. Canon realized they needed some spark, realized they had this in their back pocket, and decided to delay the 7DII to develop this technology into it and thus threw 7D owners a firmware update to keep them from jumping ship while they work on it. That may not be right but it sure sounds good, doesn't it? lol

if you really want it perhaps changing systems

http://www.petapixel.c​om …king-autofocus-next-year/

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #15510243
if you really want it perhaps changing systems

http://www.petapixel.c​om …king-autofocus-next-year/

Hah! Awesome! Knew it was a matter of time. Once they do it, Canon won't have a choice but to get it back in action.

What I find interesting is that they say it would be too expensive to include in all but the pricier cameras. Doesn't make sense to me that it would be that costly at this point in time.

theflyingkiwi wrote in post #15510243
if you really want it perhaps changing systems

http://www.petapixel.c​om …king-autofocus-next-year/

This is great!...Now I really hope that Canon will upstage them with the 7D2. What is the expected(rumored) launch date for the 7D2 anyway?

Presumably if it was that awesome, Canon wouldn't have dropped it.

tkbslc wrote in post #15510415
Presumably if it was that awesome, Canon wouldn't have dropped it.

Presumably you've tried it?

tkbslc wrote in post #15510415
Presumably if it was that awesome, Canon wouldn't have dropped it.

It was awesome and I for one am deperate for it to return. I don't need it with more bells and whistles, exactly like my Eos-3 would suit me fine.

At the time the Eos-3 was heavily criticised for being a "plastic" camera, only with hindsight has it been appreciated for the fine body it was. Canon should perhaps have given us eye-control in a (metal) 1 series body, that way it would become something for the rest of us to aim for?

Lowner wrote in post #15510827
It was awesome and I for one am deperate for it to return. I don't need it with more bells and whistles, exactly like my Eos-3 would suit me fine.

At the time the Eos-3 was heavily criticised for being a "plastic" camera, only with hindsight has it been appreciated for the fine body it was. Canon should perhaps have given us eye-control in a (metal) 1 series body, that way it would become something for the rest of us to aim for?

When I went digital I was so surprised that the camera didn't had eye tracking. It worked so well with my film body that I just assumed it would be a standard feature in the digital world.