# Patent: The return of eye-controlled focus, but for mirrorless cameras



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 18, 2021)

> Keith over at Northlight Images has uncovered a USPTO patent that shows eye-controlled focus for mirrorless cameras. This has been a requested feature for quite some time and we have seen in the past on film cameras such as the EOS 5, EOS 3 and Elan IIE. It was always a mixed bag when it came to its effectiveness, some people loved it, others hated it.
> From USPTO Patent US 2021/0051265
> An image capture apparatus detects a subject in a captured image. The image capture apparatus further recognizes its user based on an eyeball image of the user. The image capture apparatus then selects a main subject area from among the detected subject areas, based on information regarding subjects captured in the past and stored being associated with the recognized user.
> There was a patent for this back in 2019, but Canon has added to the technology by...



Continue reading...


----------



## BakaBokeh (Feb 18, 2021)

Done well, auto-focusing on what you look at could be an awesome feature.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 18, 2021)

BakaBokeh said:


> Done well, auto-focusing on what you look at could be an awesome feature.


Damn that could take some explaining to my wife if I’m taking holiday snaps on the beach


----------



## masterpix (Feb 18, 2021)

As an optional mechanism to pick AF points that would be amazing feature. Allowing the option to track moving objects in the EVF.


----------



## snapshot (Feb 18, 2021)

in my experience with the elan 7e which had 7 autofocus zones and the 5d2 i replaced it with that had 9 autofocus points in a diamond, i could use the 5d2's joy stick to get the focus point just as fast, and more reliably than the eye controlled focus thing.


----------



## slclick (Feb 18, 2021)

Ironically, it worked better on my EOS 5 than on my 3, other than that the 3 was the far better camera body. My favorite film camera. Must have been the close spacing of the AF points.


----------



## eosbob (Feb 18, 2021)

I had an Elan IIE when it came out and the Eye controlled focus worked like a dream. Hard to believe that 25 years ago Canon had that and never really continued with it. 




__





EOS ELAN II / EOS ELAN IIE - Canon Camera Museum


Here, you can find out about Canon's Film Cameras > EOS > EOS ELAN II / EOS ELAN IIE, EOS 50 / EOS 50E.



global.canon


----------



## Berowne (Feb 18, 2021)

I always wondered, if eye-controlled AF is save and could not cause any damage to the retina.


----------



## rgb (Feb 18, 2021)

R7 with Eye controll would be great, i loved it on my eos 5


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Feb 18, 2021)

I wonder how well it would work for eyeglass wearers.


----------



## amorse (Feb 18, 2021)

Really interesting. I never had the pleasure of using the system previously, but it sounds like there are some mixed reviews on past iterations of the system based on comments in here?

I wonder if there could be some really great synergies with the current eye detection systems in mirrorless bodies already. For instance, a modern eye-tracking system may not need to be used for selection of a specific autofocus point, but rather subject selection. If you're photographing a crowded space with lots of people in it (i.e. maybe a sports field or a street filled with people and lots of faces), I could see a ton of value if you only had to look at the subject you're after and the camera would find that subject's eye/face. That could make switching subjects real fast, one would think.

Neat!


----------



## Kit. (Feb 18, 2021)

The camera on the drawing clearly has a mirror.

And yes, I had an Elan IIE (still probably have it lying somewhere), and its eye autofocus did not work reliably with my eyes.


----------



## miketcool (Feb 18, 2021)

It still works like magic on my EOS 3. I’d love to have this on a mirrorless camera.


----------



## Joules (Feb 18, 2021)

Kit. said:


> The camera on the drawing clearly has a mirror.
> 
> And yes, I had an Elan IIE (still probably have it lying somewhere), and its eye autofocus did not work reliably with my eyes.


If you mean the diagonal labeled 15, that's a beam splitter, making it possible for the user to look at the EVF and a camera to look at the user's eye. This is not a DSLR body. But sure, it is not strictly speaking mirrorless, if that was your point.


----------



## Joules (Feb 18, 2021)

So they light up your eye with infrared LEDs and take a picture of it using a small dual pixel AF sensor in the top of the EVF.

They seem to go way deeper than just AF control with this. The patents talks about identifiying different users based on their iris signature and saving user specific subject preferences. If I understand it correctly, you and your partner could share a body. When one of you prefers taking pictures of flowers, flowers will be recognized as the most likely subject in a scene when this user operates the camera, and if the other user prefers birds for example, those will be their default subjects. Which also implies that the bodies will have greater subject recognition capabilities in the first place.

Wasn't there a thread just a while back about people wishing for more security on their devices? Seems like with essentially an iris scanner built into the EVF, that might be another application they could look at since they process that information anyway.


----------



## usern4cr (Feb 18, 2021)

In a recent vote in Scotland whether this will be the future AF technology or not, the "_*Eyes"* _have it!


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 18, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> Damn that could take some explaining to my wife if I’m taking holiday snaps on the beach


With some photographers, It would work like a kind of opto-electronic "booby"-trap


----------



## stochasticmotions (Feb 18, 2021)

Would love to see this technology updated to the same extent that autofocus tracking has improved over the years. I still have the Elan 7E as my last Canon film camera, it was pretty good tech for the time...not perfect but it did work.


----------



## becceric (Feb 19, 2021)

While I enjoyed using my Elan IIe, the eye controlled focus did not enjoy my rather thick eyeglasses. Still a great camera though.


----------



## Chig (Feb 19, 2021)

I have an EOS 30v (Elan 7NE/7S) which is my favourite film camera and the last film camera Canon ever made (2003)
It works well including the eye controlled focus (for me anyway) and I found this feature works best if you use a large eye cup which holds your eye in a fixed position such as Hoodman's (which are also much more comfortable than the awful standard ones)
I believe people with low contrast irises had poor results though.
Just imagine how well it could work today especially in combination with DPAF ii and using the initial selection by your eyes followed by the automated eye tracking.
Great security feature too which could unlock your camera at the start of each session
Really hope this is included on the R7


----------



## slclick (Feb 19, 2021)

Chig said:


> I have an EOS 30v (Elan 7NE/7S) which is my favourite film camera and the last film camera Canon ever made (2003)
> It works well including the eye controlled focus (for me anyway) and I found this feature works best if you use a large eye cup which holds your eye in a fixed position such as Hoodman's (which are also much more comfortable than the awful standard ones)
> I believe people with low contrast irises had poor results though.
> Just imagine how well it could work today especially in combination with DPAF ii and using the initial selection by your eyes followed by the automated eye tracking.
> ...


Are you implying the last film body launch? The EOS 1v was made until *2010*. (debuted in 2000)


----------



## Chig (Feb 19, 2021)

slclick said:


> Are you implying the last film body launch? The EOS 1v was made until *2010*. (debuted in 2000)


Well yes the eos 1v was launched in 2000 and my eos 30v in 2003 so a bit more modern design and lighter too


----------



## heyjp (Feb 19, 2021)

I bought the A2e (EOS 5) back in the early 90’s. The ‘e’ stood for eye. I bought the ‘e’ version as a lark since I’m a total gadget geek and thought it world be fun to play sith. I bought it with low to no expectations.

The eye focus was AMAZING! Absolutely loved it. So wonderful to frame an image as you want it, then glance at the focus point and shoot! The focus was good. The exposure would be good (since exposure was set with the framing). A total joy. I had a lot of fun with it.

Of course that was when I was still in my late 30’s and I could still see without glasses. I don’t think that generation worked with glasses at all.

Jim in Colorado


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 19, 2021)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I wonder how well it would work for eyeglass wearers.


I have some mid class eye-control equipped film EOS and it works astonishingly well with -2.5 sph + -2.5 cyl which is IMO a medium strong glass with a little trickier geometry due to cylindrical shape.


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 19, 2021)

Berowne said:


> I always wondered, if eye-controlled AF is save and could not cause any damage to the retina.


If you use infrared which is far from the visible spectrum you can use very low intensities + "infrared photons" have very low energy, to low to induce chemical reactions so there are lots of reasons to see it as non-dangerous.
But today it should be easy to observe the "focusing" eye with a small camer with e.g. VGA (640x480) resolution and to evaluate the image for the position of the eye and the direction of its optical axis - maybe a "waste product" of eye AF with some tweaks?!


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 19, 2021)

I just wonder if this AF could become precise enough to "trap" a little bird in dense foliage.
This being a typical situation, where normal AF often encounters difficulties, focusing on the right subject.
Which tiny part of the human eye will the system use to center on ???


----------



## stefang (Feb 19, 2021)

The EOS 5 was my first Canon and I loved it, but didn't care much for the eye control. Setting the focus point manually worked better for me.
But if it works well, eye control could be a nice addition: just look at a certain point and press a button to move focus to that point.


----------



## canonmike (Feb 19, 2021)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I wonder how well it would work for eyeglass wearers.


I had two EOS 3 film bodies and, as an eye glass wearer, much to my surprise, it worked perfectly for me. Like others, I was surprised they never offered this feature in any of their digital camera body offerings. You could manually turn on/off this feature, as well, calibrating the body to your own eye(s). To my knowledge, no other Mfg ever offered this feature. I believe the A2e body was the first Canon body to offer the eye controlled focus capability and I owned one. Good body but the Eye focus feature only worked in landscape mode, not vertical portrait mode, so it's usefullness was limited. When they solved this problem with the production of the EOS 3 body, I jumped on it. While some users found eye controlled focus lacking, it worked great for me. I would think that any new version would be much more capable, given Canon's current tech capabilities.


----------



## Bonich (Feb 19, 2021)

snapshot said:


> in my experience with the elan 7e which had 7 autofocus zones and the 5d2 i replaced it with that had 9 autofocus points in a diamond, i could use the 5d2's joy stick to get the focus point just as fast, and more reliably than the eye controlled focus thing.


Exactly!
All those being exited about this feature never used it.

The only application I can think about this being useful: Eye-AF with more than one eye/person in the frame selecting the desired one.
But the thumb is free to be used and doing so is a fast way of control.


----------



## bbasiaga (Feb 19, 2021)

My eyeglasses self darken in the sun...i wonder if this would still work.


----------



## gruhl28 (Feb 19, 2021)

Joules said:


> So they light up your eye with infrared LEDs and take a picture of it using a small dual pixel AF sensor in the top of the EVF.
> 
> They seem to go way deeper than just AF control with this. The patents talks about identifiying different users based on their iris signature and saving user specific subject preferences. If I understand it correctly, you and your partner could share a body. When one of you prefers taking pictures of flowers, flowers will be recognized as the most likely subject in a scene when this user operates the camera, and if the other user prefers birds for example, those will be their default subjects. Which also implies that the bodies will have greater subject recognition capabilities in the first place.
> 
> Wasn't there a thread just a while back about people wishing for more security on their devices? Seems like with essentially an iris scanner built into the EVF, that might be another application they could look at since they process that information anyway.


Exactly; this is different from the eye-controlled autofocus of years ago. And the quoted section of the patent doesn’t even mention anything about tracking where the eye is looking.


----------



## eosbob (Feb 19, 2021)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I wonder how well it would work for eyeglass wearers.


It worked just fine on my Elan IIE.


----------



## Maps (Feb 19, 2021)

amorse said:


> For instance, a modern eye-tracking system may not need to be used for selection of a specific autofocus point, but rather subject selection.


I think CV is still too finicky to pull it off just yet, but this is an awesome idea as things evolve.


----------



## JustUs7 (Feb 19, 2021)

Interesting idea. Curious about deployment. In the new EVF’s, I’m looking at a lot of things. The histogram, the level, other settings, maybe focus is on one of my children based on their position, but I’m scanning the others to make sure eyes are open and tongues aren’t sticking out. 

I assume you look at your target, push a button to lock in, then go about business normally?


----------



## HikeBike (Feb 19, 2021)

Ancestors


----------



## Maps (Feb 19, 2021)

FamilyGuy said:


> Interesting idea. Curious about deployment. In the new EVF’s, I’m looking at a lot of things. The histogram, the level, other settings, maybe focus is on one of my children based on their position, but I’m scanning the others to make sure eyes are open and tongues aren’t sticking out.
> 
> I assume you look at your target, push a button to lock in, then go about business normally?



Maybe it should lock focus on the kids with their eyes open and send the ones pulling faces into the background?


----------



## slclick (Feb 19, 2021)

More and more I am seeing people wanting a camera body to do more and more 'thinking'. At first, smart phones were the culprit in the demise of dslr's and now I see mirrorless tech being the demise of the 'photographer'. 

Years ago, photographers had to really stand up for it being an art form or not in the eyes of the critics. Now with it losing it's 'craft' level of study, technique training, having an eye for framing and interest, where will the field go when AI is controlling more aspects of the shot than the human?

Why even have manual modes then? You might argue it's the future, it's evolution but what I see is the person behind the viewfinder is slowly becoming less relevant. So, will the new saying be "It's about which camera you buy, not who is behind the lens" 

Meanwhile, film is still a thing thank goodness so there is hope there.


----------



## Joules (Feb 19, 2021)

slclick said:


> More and more I am seeing people wanting a camera body to do more and more 'thinking'. At first, smart phones were the culprit in the demise of dslr's and now I see mirrorless tech being the demise of the 'photographer'.
> 
> Years ago, photographers had to really stand up for it being an art form or not in the eyes of the critics. Now with it losing it's 'craft' level of study, technique training, having an eye for framing and interest, where will the field go when AI is controlling more aspects of the shot than the human?
> 
> ...


Are you referring to moving the AF with your eye? How is that taking away from the art side of photography? I see it more as offering a more natural means of operating the camera compared to using dials or a joystick.

So, it is actually the camera being less in the way of the art, isn't it?


----------



## Maps (Feb 19, 2021)

slclick said:


> More and more I am seeing people wanting a camera body to do more and more 'thinking'. At first, smart phones were the culprit in the demise of dslr's and now I see mirrorless tech being the demise of the 'photographer'.
> 
> Years ago, photographers had to really stand up for it being an art form or not in the eyes of the critics. Now with it losing it's 'craft' level of study, technique training, having an eye for framing and interest, where will the field go when AI is controlling more aspects of the shot than the human?
> 
> ...



I’m strongly in favor of packing every “smart” feature into a camera body that you can. I’m equally adamant though about retaining the ability to turn them off when I don’t want them, which (for me at least) is probably most of the time.


----------



## amorse (Feb 19, 2021)

slclick said:


> More and more I am seeing people wanting a camera body to do more and more 'thinking'. At first, smart phones were the culprit in the demise of dslr's and now I see mirrorless tech being the demise of the 'photographer'.
> 
> Years ago, photographers had to really stand up for it being an art form or not in the eyes of the critics. Now with it losing it's 'craft' level of study, technique training, having an eye for framing and interest, where will the field go when AI is controlling more aspects of the shot than the human?
> 
> ...


Personally, I'd argue that what a photographer chooses to point their camera at is just as important as their technique. If modern cameras help to offset deficiencies in a person's technique I don't think that takes from the art form - plenty of famous/popular/revered images are not technically perfect but are relevant because of the subject or story they tell. A technically perfect image of an uninteresting subject/story, for me, is less inspiring than a technically flawed image with an interesting/compelling story or subject. To each their own!


----------



## nvettese (Feb 19, 2021)

Introducing the new Canon EOS Elan Re


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 19, 2021)

slclick said:


> More and more I am seeing people wanting a camera body to do more and more 'thinking'. At first, smart phones were the culprit in the demise of dslr's and now I see mirrorless tech being the demise of the 'photographer'.
> 
> Years ago, photographers had to really stand up for it being an art form or not in the eyes of the critics. Now with it losing it's 'craft' level of study, technique training, having an eye for framing and interest, where will the field go when AI is controlling more aspects of the shot than the human?
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree more!
PS: all my cameras, (I started with a twin-lens Rolleiflex without metering), are still set on manual all the time. I'd hate the camera deciding about all important parameters. I want to take the picture, and not the camera. Maybe I'm wrong?
Yet, even though I relentlessly (stupidly!) criticized AF when Minolta brought it, I could no longer get along without it...


----------



## Peter Bergh (Feb 19, 2021)

slclick said:


> More and more I am seeing people wanting a camera body to do more and more 'thinking'. At first, smart phones were the culprit in the demise of dslr's and now I see mirrorless tech being the demise of the 'photographer'.
> 
> Years ago, photographers had to really stand up for it being an art form or not in the eyes of the critics. Now with it losing it's 'craft' level of study, technique training, having an eye for framing and interest, where will the field go when AI is controlling more aspects of the shot than the human?
> 
> ...



An analogy: Do you still drive a stick shift? To put it more bluntly: Are you a luddite?

IMHO, the more of the trivial things that the camera handles, the better. When the camera handles the simple stuff, I am free to concentrate on the one essential thing: composition.

PS. My previous camera was a Mamiya RB67, a totally manual film camera. I wouldn't go back for any amount of money.


----------



## fox40phil (Feb 19, 2021)

Do someone know why was it removed and not in DSLRs only on three SLRs(right?)?! Have asked me this for years ...


----------



## WoodyWindy (Feb 20, 2021)

This sounds like a very different technique than was used in the film eye-controlled focus. This doesn't appear to be based on what the user is currently looking at, but rather what the current user (based on their "eye-print") has selected to focus on in the past.


----------



## zim (Feb 20, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> In a recent vote in Scotland whether this will be the future AF technology or not, the "_*Eyes"* _have it!


Aye, right


----------



## usern4cr (Feb 20, 2021)

WoodyWindy said:


> This sounds like a very different technique than was used in the film eye-controlled focus. This doesn't appear to be based on what the user is currently looking at, but rather what the current user (based on their "eye-print") has selected to focus on in the past.


If this eye AF is not tracking the user's eye movements to move a focus box, then I don't know what value it would have at all.


----------



## SteveC (Feb 21, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> If this eye AF is not tracking the user's eye movements to move a focus box, then I don't know what value it would have at all.


I agree. This sounds like some sort of predictive/AI thing, and I loathe a system showing me only what it THINKS I want to see...or focusing on what it thinks I want to focus on.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 21, 2021)

Joules said:


> Are you referring to moving the AF with your eye? How is that taking away from the art side of photography? I see it more as offering a more natural means of operating the camera compared to using dials or a joystick.
> 
> So, it is actually the camera being less in the way of the art, isn't it?


What would the _natural_ behavior of the eye-controlled AF be if you decided to look at the histogram?


----------



## Joules (Feb 21, 2021)

Kit. said:


> What would the _natural_ behavior of the eye-controlled AF be if you decided to look at the histogram?


Recognizing that you moved your eye to the display elements and therefore leaving the AF at the subject your eye looked at before beginng to move, for example.

Or more likely, moving the AF point would require an additional input like half pressing the shutter button before making changes to what is being focused on.

My confusion with your post is just that I fail to see how giving artists more options diminishes the art.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 21, 2021)

Joules said:


> Recognizing that you moved your eye to the display elements and therefore leaving the AF at the subject your eye looked at before beginng to move, for example.


So, if I want to move the AF point there, it won't let me?

And what if I want to check how the out-of-focus areas are rendered?



Joules said:


> Or more likely, moving the AF point would require an additional input like half pressing the shutter button before making changes to what is being focused on.


So, still no checking out-of-focus areas when autofocus is active?



Joules said:


> My confusion with your post is just that I fail to see how giving artists more options diminishes the art.


As long as this option is turned off and never used, it doesn't.

However, trying to actually use it will produce bad habits and worse images, because you are forced to restrict your eye movements otherwise necessary to evaluate the scene as a whole.


----------



## Joules (Feb 21, 2021)

Kit. said:


> So, if I want to move the AF point there, it won't let me?
> 
> And what if I want to check how the out-of-focus areas are rendered?
> 
> ...


I'm not the Canon engineer designing the features, so what point is there in me speculating about these questions? If they can't figure out a way to make the technology usefull for certain users under certain circumstances, they won't implement. If they do implement it, there will still the options that we are used to for those users or circumstances where the new implementation isn't usefull. It will of course be interesting how they go about the design aspects and challenges like those you name for example in the finished product.

I just don't see how adding features and options (that you don't have to use) can take away from the art. You can of couse be of the opinion that the tool used to create it, or the understanding of this tool, are part of what makes the art valueable. I don't see it that way, but even if you do - there has to be an individual limit of how much you care. Is art lesser if AF is used? Is it lesser if a certain method for selection of AF point is used? Is it lesser if the user doesn't understand how AF is aquired on a technical level?

For me, art requires an idea and is the product of this idea being realized through some tool. Depending on how concrete this idea is, deep knowledge of the tool and how it affects the result may be required for the artist to create the desired art. But having a tool with more options should only enhance the chance of the artist having just what they need at their disposal and therefore being able to focus more on the art and less on the tool. Your view on this is certainly valid, I just don't understand it based on what you've written so far. Maybe you aren't even concerned with the point about art that slclick raised originally and I commented on in the post you quoted.

Or maybe I just didn't make it clear that I think dials and joysticks can't be replaced properly by this alternative control method for all users and use cases.


----------



## Kit. (Feb 21, 2021)

Joules said:


> Your view on this is certainly valid, I just don't understand it based on what you've written so far. Maybe you aren't even concerned with the point about art that slclick raised originally and I commented on in the post you quoted.


My main point was, of course, that the people here overestimated the usability of this option.

However, if the use of this option gains popularity among "artists" for its ease of use despite its reduced usability, I would expect some changes in the quality of what the general public perceives as "art", and I don't think I would like these changes.


----------



## SteveC (Feb 21, 2021)

Joules said:


> I'm not the Canon engineer designing the features, so what point is there in me speculating about these questions? If they can't figure out a way to make the technology usefull for certain users under certain circumstances, they won't implement. If they do implement it, there will still the options that we are used to for those users or circumstances where the new implementation isn't usefull. It will of course be interesting how they go about the design aspects and challenges like those you name for example in the finished product.
> 
> I just don't see how adding features and options (that you don't have to use) can take away from the art. You can of couse be of the opinion that the tool used to create it, or the understanding of this tool, are part of what makes the art valueable. I don't see it that way, but even if you do - there has to be an individual limit of how much you care. Is art lesser if AF is used? Is it lesser if a certain method for selection of AF point is used? Is it lesser if the user doesn't understand how AF is aquired on a technical level?
> 
> ...


I'm not the canon engineer either, but I could make a suggestion...work it like back button focus. Push the back button, the camera registers where you're looking and focuses. Take your thumb off the button and check out the rest of the screen including histogram, out of focus areas, etc.


----------



## PerKr (Feb 22, 2021)

fox40phil said:


> Do someone know why was it removed and not in DSLRs only on three SLRs(right?)?! Have asked me this for years ...


Only Canon know for sure. However, as amazing as it was for some people it was very unreliable for others. And with an increasing number of focus points picking a specific focusing point gets increasingly more difficult. Basically, it just didn't get enough good user reviews to be meaningful in a time when Canon were the only ones to have something like it.


----------



## canonmike (Feb 24, 2021)

bbasiaga said:


> My eyeglasses self darken in the sun...i wonder if this would still work.


This question may be spot on and I would be interested to know the answer, myself. As mentioned in another post, I am an eyeglass wearer and owned two EOS 3 film bodies and very much enjoyed their eye controlled focus capabilities. However, my glasses were not automatic transitional, sun darkening lenses that you are referring to, like the ones I now also wear. Unfortunately, I sold both of my EOS 3 bodies when I upgraded to my first Canon digital body, the 20D, back in 2004, so I cannot attest to that capability. I hope an EOS 3 user out there sees your post and can speak to your question. It will be interesting to see if Canon actually brings back this tech, hopefully with improved capabilities.


----------



## canonmike (Feb 24, 2021)

Joules said:


> I'm not the Canon engineer designing the features, so what point is there in me speculating about these questions? If they can't figure out a way to make the technology usefull for certain users under certain circumstances, they won't implement. If they do implement it, there will still the options that we are used to for those users or circumstances where the new implementation isn't usefull. It will of course be interesting how they go about the design aspects and challenges like those you name for example in the finished product.
> 
> I just don't see how adding features and options (that you don't have to use) can take away from the art. You can of couse be of the opinion that the tool used to create it, or the understanding of this tool, are part of what makes the art valueable. I don't see it that way, but even if you do - there has to be an individual limit of how much you care. Is art lesser if AF is used? Is it lesser if a certain method for selection of AF point is used? Is it lesser if the user doesn't understand how AF is aquired on a technical level?
> 
> ...


You have raised some very valid points here, the biggest one being, IMHO, offering the feature is one some people might enjoy. Others, still, see no use in it. So, turn it on, turn it off. Since you are not saddled with having to employ eye controlled focus, I see nothing wrong with having another option at one's disposal. Enjoyed your post.


----------

