# 'Revolutionary' Dual Pixel AF Explained



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 26, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/07/revolutionary-dual-pixel-af-explained/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/07/revolutionary-dual-pixel-af-explained/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Dual Pixel CMOS AF will change —High Image Quality” the basic assumptions about Digital SLRs

</strong>Canon USA has posted a PDF explaining the “revolutionary” Dual Pixel AF technology.</p>
<p><strong>Introduction</strong>

This is not just a new technology. It is a revolution that will significantly expand the possibilities of DSLR cameras.</p>
<ul>
<li><em>“The correct way to take photos is by looking through an optical viewfinder and shooting”</em></li>
<li><em>“Live View is a subsidiary function, inferior to the optical viewfinder”</em></li>
<li><em>“The DSLR’s movie mode is so difficult, as to be usable only by a professional”</em></li>
</ul>
<p>Dual Pixel CMOS AF is a new technology that will cast aside these assumptions. The entire surface of the sensor is lined with pixels composed of two photodiodes each, and the image plane phase-difference detection AF focuses using the phase-difference of the two parallax images.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/app/pdfs/articles/Canon_Developers_Interview_nonfacing_pressquality.pdf" target="_blank">Read The Entire Article</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/986389-REG/canon_8469b002_canon_eos_70d_dslr.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">Canon EOS 70D at B&H Photo</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 26, 2013)

The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?


----------



## bsbeamer (Jul 26, 2013)

I think this is just the start of a "new wave" of better quality STM lenses on the way to work with this AF technology... not sure if they'll get to the "L" series with STM, especially at the price point of the capable camera bodies, but just below that would be welcomed by many and there would be a market for them, if this AF works as promised. (Though the C100 can work with STM lenses apparently, maybe the C300 as well?)

Interesting developments for sure...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 26, 2013)

bsbeamer said:


> I think this is just the start of a "new wave" of better quality STM lenses on the way to work with this AF technology... not sure if they'll get to the "L" series with STM, especially at the price point of the capable camera bodies, but just below that would be welcomed by many and there would be a market for them, if this AF works as promised. (Though the C100 can work with STM lenses apparently, maybe the C300 as well?)
> 
> Interesting developments for sure...


 
The STM lenses were made to smooth out AF for Video. With the Dual Pixel system, that is no longer a problem to be solved, so STM lenses will continue to be built because they are cheaper to make.


----------



## jonjt (Jul 26, 2013)

I'd like to see how Sigma and Tokina are going to deal with this. My 11-16 and my 85/1.4 are both lenses and, I'd hate for them to be made unusuable.


----------



## dstppy (Jul 26, 2013)

My takeaway from this is that they're eventually going to produce a mirrorless that has a 'viewfinder' that eventually will work as well as an optical viewfinder . . .

Meh for now.

Cool for later. Progress is progress


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 26, 2013)

If the entire sensor is capable of phase detect, why are there still discrete autofocus points? What keeps them from using a touch screen to say "focus here"?


----------



## bchernicoff (Jul 26, 2013)

3kramd5 said:


> If the entire sensor is capable of phase detect, why are there still discrete autofocus points? What keeps them from using a touch screen to say "focus here"?



I believe they demoed exactly that in some of the 70D promo videos.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 26, 2013)

Thanks for explaining why this dual pixel af doesn't provide any significant step forward to what I do...

* I like to shoot through an (o)vf, and with heavier lenses everything else is non-practical except ...
* When on mono-/tripod in lv I use mf with Magic Lantern's focus peaking (and raw zebras/histogram)
* I don't do video, for my 2ct they could release a non-movie 6d w/ a lower price


----------



## Timothy_Bruce (Jul 26, 2013)

Thinking about every pixel being used für phase-detection-AF, so also there will be the Bayer filter in front of them making the AF system able to recognize the color of the AF-subject. 
So this could lead to a really good hold on to AF-Servo-targets when there is a Color Difference towards the background or obstacles.

Maybe the next 1D will have an AF sensor of this type... think of an viewfinder-AF with 10.000.000 AF-Points and an intelligent binding system with a dot-matrix lcd overlay...


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 26, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> Thanks for explaining why this dual pixel af doesn't provide any significant step forward to what I do...
> 
> * I like to shoot through an (o)vf, and with heavier lenses everything else is non-practical except ...
> * When on mono-/tripod in lv I use mf with Magic Lantern's focus peaking (and raw zebras/histogram)
> * I don't do video, for my 2ct they could release a non-movie 6d w/ a lower price



Not going to happen. At this point it's an expected feature checkbox for new DSLRs to have a movie mode. Frankly, it wouldn't make economic sense for them to. They'd need 2 separate tooling lines for the body with the switch to movie mode, and one without. Plus they'd need to maintain 2 separate firmwares, one with movie support and one without.


----------



## meli (Jul 26, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?



Perhaps 3rd party lenses wont have a problem after all, here is a preview of a 70d with a 18-35 sigma performing splendidly apparently:

Canon 70D Review + Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 lens preview


----------



## viggen61 (Jul 26, 2013)

3kramd5 said:


> If the entire sensor is capable of phase detect, why are there still discrete autofocus points? What keeps them from using a touch screen to say "focus here"?


The phase detect on the sensor only works with the mirror up, and is seamless across the image. With the mirror down, using the viewfinder, you're still using the "old" phase detect system, which still requires the discrete points.


----------



## justsomedude (Jul 26, 2013)

I think the Dual Pixel AF is indeed revolutionary, and posted up my opinions on this a couple of weeks ago when the 70D was launched. 

On a side note, it's nice to see Canon back at innovating new technology and pushing the industry forward. I was a little worried after the 5D3-vs.-d800 forum angst last year, but clearly Canon is responding. Next up... the 75mp body everyone's itching to see!

Thanks, Canon, for getting back on track!


----------



## gruhl28 (Jul 26, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?



I'm concerned about the 100mm f/2.8 Macro (non-IS), which I own. This is a currently sold lens, and the document said that dual pixel would support all current lenses, but the macro is on the list of lenses that are not fully supported. This seems like a contradiction. This is the only high quality current lens that I noticed on the list that is not fully supported.


----------



## sandymandy (Jul 26, 2013)

Am i the only one who prefers shooting with the optical viewfinder, even if live view is tzhe same speed? I think its not long anymore til Canon only releases only mirrorless cameras if the AF speed is the same. And then people like me can pay another 899$ or whatever for an electronic viewfinder


----------



## photonius (Jul 26, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?



As pointed out, each lens has to be calibrated. based on the report, it seems they did an algorithm that can cover all lenses. However, there is absolutely nothing against have specific look-up tables for lenses that don't fit the normal algorithm. So, in theory there is nothing wrong with Canon providing firmware updates to include additional lenses. This could also include a separate set of algorithms for say the current 103 lenses attached to the 1.4x teleconverter. After all, it's just a matter of testing all lenses, teleconverter combinations, and develop the correct algorithms. Then load it into the camera body, provided the memory is large enough to hold all info.

As to third party lenses. In the case of sigma, they work already by pretending to be Canon lenses. At least in Sigma's case with their new lenses and the dock for updates, they might be able to make it work. I.e. first, they have to choose a lens in the the 103 line-up, then they have to check that the algorithm works. If not select another lens. Amongst the 103, hopefully they find one that with some firmware update works.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 26, 2013)

bchernicoff said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > If the entire sensor is capable of phase detect, why are there still discrete autofocus points? What keeps them from using a touch screen to say "focus here"?
> ...



Cool - haven't seen them.



viggen61 said:


> The phase detect on the sensor only works with the mirror up, and is seamless across the image. With the mirror down, using the viewfinder, you're still using the "old" phase detect system, which still requires the discrete points.



Ah, yes that makes sense. The ability to (auto)focus anywhere on the frame is pretty revolutionary indeed.



sandymandy said:


> Am i the only one who prefers shooting with the optical viewfinder, even if live view is tzhe same speed?



I've never used a system where your "even if" is true, but if one were available I wouldn't mind EVF. I'd rather hold the camera up to my eye than cantilevered in front of my face. In other words, given the "even if," I'd prefer OVF to back mounted LCD in most cases.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 26, 2013)

sandymandy said:


> Am i the only one who prefers shooting with the optical viewfinder, even if live view is tzhe same speed? I think its not long anymore til Canon only releases only mirrorless cameras if the AF speed is the same. And then people like me can pay another 899$ or whatever for an electronic viewfinder



No, you are not the only one. But, I am increasingly thinking I am more of a dinosaur than I realize (But then again, that happens every time I look in the mirror anyway).

I get that Canon is trying to make live view as useful and accurate as an optical viewfinder, but I hope they don't start to compromise optical viewfinder performance. Sorry, but I just don't see how live view can ever compete with the ergonomics of a viewfinder especially with longer lenses and in bright light. 

This seems to me to be another sign of the convergence of video and stills and I suspect that stills photographers are just going to have to learn to accept some compromises as video starts to rule the world.


----------



## Joellll (Jul 26, 2013)

So let me get this straight....

What the Dual Pixel AF is doing, is that the sensor is actually a two 20mp sensor that is adjacent to each other in a way that it is detecting parallax from the slightest difference between the two pixels?

If that is the case, isn't it actually easier for macro lenses to focus? Since the closer an object is, the parallax effect is more apparent, giving the sensor more difference to detect.


----------



## hgraf (Jul 26, 2013)

meli said:


> Perhaps 3rd party lenses wont have a problem after all, here is a preview of a 70d with a 18-35 sigma performing splendidly apparently:



3rd party lenses in a way "pretend" to be real Canon lenses in certain areas.

Depending on how much Canon "checks" what kind of lens is attached, and as long as the lens your lens is pretending to be is supported it should work without issue.

TTYL


----------



## dstppy (Jul 26, 2013)

sandymandy said:


> Am i the only one who prefers shooting with the optical viewfinder, even if live view is tzhe same speed? I think its not long anymore til Canon only releases only mirrorless cameras if the AF speed is the same. And then people like me can pay another 899$ or whatever for an electronic viewfinder



I think we'll start seeing them, but mirrored cameras are going to be around for a while still.

It's going to have to be FLAWLESS for them to not completely get ravaged if they switch anything mid-prosumer . . . and even still, how much complaining about the 5D3 & 1Dx did we have to listen to? No, I think we're safe for now.


----------



## gruhl28 (Jul 26, 2013)

gruhl28 said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?
> ...



FYI, I pinged Canon USA about this, and they say that they do not have information yet about which lenses are compatible, despite the fact that Canon Europe has a list up on their website of lenses that are not fully compatible.


----------



## jrista (Jul 26, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?



If you are shooting a movie, and stop down to f/11, it will still support phase-detect AF. It is the stopped-down (current) aperture that matters in this case, not the maximum aperture. 

I can't say why it wouldn't work with a TC, especially if the max aperture was larger than f/11...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 26, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?



Oh darn, it doesn't work with TC combos?? So the poor 70-300L+1.4x TC will STILL not be able to focus?? 
And yeah what gives f/11 other maybe some weird old bizarro tele-tube lens or mirror lens from long ago? Do those things even have AF??

EDIT: oops forgot that for movies you do stopped down shooting as jrista points out so of course f/11 AF would be a commonplace need. In fact even beyond f/11 would be nice.

But I sure hope that for once they don't forget the 70-300L+1.4x TC III combo for AF.


----------



## jrista (Jul 26, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?
> ...



LOL. I guess people don't quite get live view AF. The f/11 is for the current, selected, stopped-down aperture, not the maximum aperture. If you are shooting a video, and stop down for DOF, the at-sensor PDAF will continue to work.

Unless there is actually some lens checking going on, I suspect it would work with a lens+TC so long as the selected aperture does not drop below f/11. I can't imagine them tying the dual-pixel AF feature to specific lenses (the PDF did say it would work with some older lenses). I think the listing is jut what they have officially tested.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 26, 2013)

meli said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?
> ...



That does look pretty cool. It sure appears to work vastly better. If they could just fix up low ISO DR, I wouldn't even begin to think of Nikon since they have so much better video, liveview, video af, UI, nicer set of lenses, etc.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 26, 2013)

3kramd5 said:


> I've never used a system where your "even if" is true, but if one were available I wouldn't mind EVF. I'd rather hold the camera up to my eye than cantilevered in front of my face. In other words, given the "even if," I'd prefer OVF to back mounted LCD in most cases.



Once cheap way to get that eye-level viewing back is to just attack a Hoodman type viewer to the LCD.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 26, 2013)

jrista said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



hah yeah, forgot of course video is stopped down shooting ;D so yeah f/11 would be a pretty common place thing with any lens in this case


----------



## rs (Jul 26, 2013)

gruhl28 said:


> I'm concerned about the 100mm f/2.8 Macro (non-IS), which I own. This is a currently sold lens, and the document said that dual pixel would support all current lenses, but the macro is on the list of lenses that are not fully supported. This seems like a contradiction. This is the only high quality current lens that I noticed on the list that is not fully supported.


If the lens on that list has USM, it says USM. The 100/2.8 Macro is listed as EF100mm f/2.8 Macro, with no USM mentioned. So it looks like its this 100mm macro which is not fully compatible:

http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/macro/ef_100_28macro.html

The current non-L 100mm macro should be fine:

[quote author=Canon]
All of Canon’s current range of EF and EF-S lenses are compatible with the Dual Pixel CMOS AF system.
[/quote]


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jul 26, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?



I assume for continuous focus while shooting video.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Jul 27, 2013)

Joellll said:


> So let me get this straight....
> 
> What the Dual Pixel AF is doing, is that the sensor is actually a two 20mp sensor that is adjacent to each other in a way that it is detecting parallax from the slightest difference between the two pixels?
> 
> If that is the case, isn't it actually easier for macro lenses to focus? Since the closer an object is, the parallax effect is more apparent, giving the sensor more difference to detect.



Not exactly. It's that it has 2 photosensors next to each other, each one taking up 1/2 of the pixel. Think of them more as sub-pixels, however they can be used separate to detect the phase of light that is coming in which can determine if that point on the subject is in focus or not, and if not, what direction the lens needs to be focused towards.

So it's really a 40M photosensor sensor, with 2 photosensors per pixel for 20MP output.


----------



## samkatz (Jul 27, 2013)

for live view shooting to become primary, someone needs to come up w/a replacement for the LCD that displays well in bright light. We've heard about OLED and other techns. etc for years but don't see it yet

Also, built in I.S.. would help Canon help photographers use Live View more. W/o a tripod it's hard to hold camera steady far a way from the body. I.S.helps a little but it's not in the camera.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 27, 2013)

sandymandy said:


> Am i the only one who prefers shooting with the optical viewfinder, even if live view is tzhe same speed? I think its not long anymore til Canon only releases only mirrorless cameras if the AF speed is the same. And then people like me can pay another 899$ or whatever for an electronic viewfinder



There are definite benefits to having an EVF instead of a OVF "if and when" live view attains same speed. Other than the increase in frame rate (when processor and memory pipelines become the only rate limiting step), we will get brighter viewfinders, won't be constrained to the size of the pentaprism for magnification, and get better eye relief. And I am sure EVFs will not be so expensive when they are mass marketed.


----------



## carpandean (Jul 27, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> sandymandy said:
> 
> 
> > And then people like me can pay another 899$ or whatever for an electronic viewfinder
> ...



The most expensive add-on EVF from Olympus, Panasonic, Sony, etc., is the one for the RX1, which is $450. The top one for the NEX is $350 and for Olympus is under $300. Each of those companies has released entire camera bodies with built-in EVFs for under $1000, and some under $800. In general, on a camera already equipped with an LCD for live-view on the back, an EVF isn't much more than a second screen. As such, if you take a DSLR, remove the mirror-box and replace the OVF with an EVF, it should be _less_ expensive to produce. That's one reason why you'll see the OVFs replaced on the lower-level DSLRs first. Consumers at that level won't care (or even know) about the marginal benefits that an OVF has. 

A system like this removes the third biggest hurtle for mirrorless migration. The top-two are marketing and a well-developed lens selection. If Canon brings this system to the EOS-M and Nikon refines their on-sensor PDAF, then eventually one or both will put the marketing $$'s behind it, and #1 will go away. #2 will simply go away with time. The high-end OVF-based bodies with be around for a long time, but the rest ...


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 27, 2013)

Here's a pro grade EVF for you.

http://www.red.com/store/products/red-pro-evf-oled

Even a quality consumer grade EVF is an expensive device compared to an OVF.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 27, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The supported lens box has some very disconcerting information. I'm wondering about 3rd party lenses that should work but will be in contrast-detect just because they aren't "supported". Also, what's the point of having this function work at f/11 if it doesn't work with teleconverters? Who has a "supported" bare f/11 lens?
> ...



Pffft...I want it so I can use a 2x TC on an f/5.6 lens.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jul 27, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



That would be cool. A 400mm f/5.6 + 2.0x TC combo is ~15% the price of the 800mm f/5.6.


----------



## jrista (Jul 27, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Ellen Schmidtee said:
> ...



And...might produce 15% the quality? ;P


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jul 27, 2013)

jrista said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



1. Yes, you do get what you pay for.

2. There are lot more people who could buy the combo than there are people who could buy the 800mm f/5.6.

3. Maybe the 400mm f/5.6 would get a mk2 upgrade, etc.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 28, 2013)

jrista said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



The 400/5.6 is optically superior to the ancient and badly out-of-date 100-400L, and I got this from the 100-400L + 2x TC. Fortunately, the moon doesn't move too fast for the T2i's contrast-detect focusing.

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/T2i__3574%20edited.jpg


----------



## jrista (Jul 28, 2013)

Lee Jay said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Ellen Schmidtee said:
> ...



Hah, I was just messing around.  I know the 400/5.6 is actually quite good for what it is. That moon is actually pretty good for a 100-400 (surprising, even). Probably a little sharper than these, which were all taken with a 300 f/2.8 L II + 2x TC III + Kenko 1.4x (840mm) and run through Nik Dfine 2 for cleanup:

http://i.imgur.com/HltlvDp.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/OjS8MX8.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/q6Gcwpv.jpg


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Jul 28, 2013)

Jackson_Bill said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > sandymandy said:
> ...



Just a thought - is fast moving too fast for a 3rd party firmware to lift the mirror and autofocus with dual pixel AF at a preselected location on the sensor?


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Jul 28, 2013)

Birds in flight, you say? If this video doesn't convince you how fast Dual Pixel PDAF on the 70D is, I don't know what will. It can track a BIF over a field (2nd video from the top of the page, around the 0:46 mark): http://cweb.canon.jp/eos/lineup/70d/info/af-tech/index.html

After seeing this I'm even more convinced now about this revolutionary tech. 8)


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Jul 28, 2013)

From the PDAF PDF:




> Miyanari: *“Even new EF lenses equipped with USM and STM that
> had fast AF drive already, it could be proven that they were even faster,
> and amongst the lenses that supported Dual Pixel CMOS AF, in particular
> lenses developed awhile ago, and low priced lenses, you will find that the
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 28, 2013)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> Birds in flight, you say? If this video doesn't convince you how fast Dual Pixel PDAF on the 70D is, I don't know what will. It can track a BIF over a field (2nd video from the top of the page, around the 0:46 mark): http://cweb.canon.jp/eos/lineup/70d/info/af-tech/index.html
> 
> After seeing this I'm even more convinced now about this revolutionary tech. 8)



That is pretty impressive. Combine 5D3 ML RAW video quality with that AF and that would be some handy video beast making some reallllly difficult wildlife/macro action stuff remarkable less crazy near impossible to pull off.


----------



## danski0224 (Jul 28, 2013)

Mark D5 TEAM II said:


> Birds in flight, you say? If this video doesn't convince you how fast Dual Pixel PDAF on the 70D is, I don't know what will. It can track a BIF over a field (2nd video from the top of the page, around the 0:46 mark): http://cweb.canon.jp/eos/lineup/70d/info/af-tech/index.html
> 
> After seeing this I'm even more convinced now about this revolutionary tech. 8)



That looks pretty impressive.

I wonder how it would work as a series of still shots instead of a movie.

Does this obsolete the RGB AF focus stuff in the 1DX, if Canon chooses to enable it in firmware for a given camera model?

Looks like there may be some interesting new releases in the near future.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 28, 2013)

danski0224 said:


> Does this obsolete the RGB AF focus stuff in the 1DX, if Canon chooses to enable it in firmware for a given camera model?



Afaik rgb metering is a hardware feature, and only important for very specific situations - usually the good ol' Canon metering does a good job, that's why this particular feature is seldom mentioned by people migrating to Nikon who have rgb metering on more cameras than their top models.


----------



## sandymandy (Jul 28, 2013)

I think the advantage of the optical viewfinder is that u really engulge in a special mental state seeing only the situation u want to shoot and only blackness all around like in a state of bliss


----------



## iMagic (Jul 28, 2013)

Excuse my ignorance but how will spot/point AF be possible? Offhand i am thinking that in those situations wouldnt the current AF system be preferable?


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 28, 2013)

iMagic said:


> Excuse my ignorance but how will spot/point AF be possible? Offhand i am thinking that in those situations wouldnt the current AF system be preferable?



Doesn't seem to be a problem for me to be done in live view, it's just how the camera fw evaluates the scene. Plus the 70d could link spot to the af point, something only seen in the 1d series 



sandymandy said:


> I think the advantage of the optical viewfinder is...



... that:
* you can hold the camera/lens properly w/o fatigue
* since the gadget is near your head, it's much more natural coordination just like "looking" w/o dslr
* you see something at all in bright sunlight
* the perceived ovf frame looks larger than the lcd at 20cm distance
* an ovf doesn't draw battery power

The main advantage of the live view is that you can enhance the display with multiple information, specifically focus peaking, zebras & histogram, this is also something I'd like to see in an evf. Plus the 70d can fast af anywhere, admittedly a very large advantage over say the miniature af point spread like 5d2/6d.


----------



## gruhl28 (Jul 28, 2013)

rs said:


> gruhl28 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm concerned about the 100mm f/2.8 Macro (non-IS), which I own. This is a currently sold lens, and the document said that dual pixel would support all current lenses, but the macro is on the list of lenses that are not fully supported. This seems like a contradiction. This is the only high quality current lens that I noticed on the list that is not fully supported.
> ...


[/quote]

Thanks, rs, I didn't realize there was an older 100mm macro. I didn't think to look at USM vs. non-USM


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jul 28, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> sandymandy said:
> 
> 
> > I think the advantage of the optical viewfinder is...
> ...



Those are advantages of an OVF over the LCD screen. However, those no longer hold for a proper EVF (except for battery consumption). By the way, I do think it might cost less to make a comparable EVF instead of an OVF with the pentaprism assembly and lenses already, and I am sure it will cost even less in the future since unlike optics, electronics will keep getting cheaper up to a point.


----------



## Marsu42 (Jul 28, 2013)

sagittariansrock said:


> Those are advantages of an OVF over the LCD screen.



Correct, because this thread is about the 70d-style dual af.



sagittariansrock said:


> However, those no longer hold for a proper EVF (except for battery consumption).



I'm also very sure evf will surpass ovf sooner or later, with equal optical quality plus many added features. But imho this point isn't reached yet, every time I look though a Sony "pro" camera with evf I'm getting the creeps, the image simply doesn't come close to what I see with my bare eyes.


----------

