Why no focus peaking in Canon cameras?

<p>So, aside from dodgy firmware hacks from the people at The Magic Lantern, one cannot get focus peaking on Canon cameras. Does Sony have some sort of a patent? Focus peaking is very useful for manual focusing and for video. If The Magic Lantern people can do this surely Canon can manage. </p>

<p>Either Canon don't think it's important or there is a patent issue. I'm 100% sure Canon is technically capable of doing it.</p>

<p>When I'm shooting video with a Nikon body, I have a small external monitor (from Lilliput) hanging off of the body's HDMI port. That display has a focus peaking mode ... and <em>man</em> is that handy. Not the least bit convenient for normal still shooting, of course.</p>

<p>Focus peaking is already available on Canon video cameras. I use it on my Canon XA10. So they have the know-how, assuming they didn't license it from someone else and have to re-negotiate for still cameras. </p>

<p>Maybe Canon is saving it for their high end video cameras. But a patent issue wouldn't be surprising. I recall the EOS A2E/A2 lacked a ruler scale for EC and FEC only for North America due to a patent conflict with an American company. The rest of the world got the ruler scale.</p>

<p>Some of the Olympus M4/3 have a kinda sorta focus peaking by using the key lime filter if you shoot RAW/JPEG (trash the JPEG). Doesn't work for video since the filter is permanent to the video.</p>

<p>Enlighten me, (as I'm not familiar with Sony cameras or the term focus peaking) but would this be like using the live view mode and zooming using the 5x or 10x magnification option on my 40D? I will use this time to time for critical manual focus on a given subject.</p>

<p>Regards, James.</p>

<p>ML isn't a firmware hack. It's a piece of software that runs when you start the camera up with a memory card w/ ML installed upon it. </p>

<p>As Bob says though, Canon is perfectly capable of equipping their bodies with some sort of focus peaking type feature. They simply chose not too. Perhaps they didn't feel that enough of their customers demanded it to make it cost effective. Maybe they figured that anybody who shoots video seriously on an EOS body uses ML already? who knows? </p>

<p>The technique simply uses contrast detection in the output (which is why Matts video monitor can do it) and overlays the sharply focused areas with a distracting color, their broadcast video cameras have been capable of it for a long time (as have everybody elses), and it isn't very processing intensive, so there is no doubt that they <em>can</em> do it, <em>and</em> they have adequate patent rights to do it. They simply chose not to make it a feature on their video enabled DSLRs. Might as well ask why they don't have a DX/FX mode (like Nikon does) on their FF cameras.</p>

<p>A used NEX goes for $200, so if I really want focus peaking with old lenses it isn't that challenging. I would like to see it on a 7D as a manual focusing aid.</p>

<p>It could also be that they're holding it back so that they can include it as a feature on future cameras. If they gave you everything you wanted right now, you'd have no incentive to upgrade! </p>

<p>Focus peaking is important on my NEX 5N because it is hard to tell focus on the lcd without it. I have the EVF and it works well with that for the same reason. The Optical finder on my 7D is good enough under most conditions that focus is more easy to discern than on the NEX where I keep peaking on full time. I have read but not experienced it that peaking maybe so inclusive to be inaccurate at the margins in its representation of depth of focus and where DOF is short one may have to fine tune the focus manually. That said I like it and rely on it. What is also helpful on the NeX in manual focus is that when one holds half down on the shutter button and rotates the focus ring the image is enlarged on either the lcd or the EVF. That would not be as necessary on my Canons IMO. The NEX also works better than the Canons in Live view. A split image would be useful on my Canons for MF. </p>

<p>I would applaud the addition of this useful feature on new models.</p>

<p>It is astonishing that focus peeking is absent from Canon high end, video equipped, DSLRs.<br>

Focus peeking is an algorithmic feature present on so many different cameras, monitors, etc., that I cannot imagine that every expression of this idea can be patented (and only an expression of an idea can be patented, not the idea itself.) More likely reason is withdrawing some features for future models. Even more likely reason is that Canon has absolutely no direction for their high end offerings so they neglect to include needed, beneficial, features (focus peeking, intervalometer) and concentrate on crap instead.</p>

<p>Of course, while I too am surprised that Canon doesn't equip it's units w/ it, The current solution is not only workable, but works very well.</p>

<p>The bottom line is that if you use a Canon DSLR for serious video work (assuming that you have a corollary model), you (almost certainly) already use ML. It also comes with several non-video features which Canon (in their infinite wisdom) chose not to enable their DSLRs with. Things like better HDR bracketing, very long exposure, macro focus stacking, etc. ironically, I use the still image features more than the video features.</p>

<p>Methinks that they (Canon) probably figures that 'video users' generally fall into two categories. 1) the absolute amateur who uses it on occasion for nothing more than the odd home video (or equiv), and 2) The advanced amateur/prosumer/professional. <br>

For category 1) more features very well may negate a current market (ie. handheld video recorders) which Canon makes a lot of money off of. If you enable effective AF, focus peaking, and so many other video features that they choose not too, you run a serious risk of shooting yourself in the foot from a sales perspective.<br>

For category 2), those who use DSLRs for 'serious' video are not going to throwaway a tool like ML (which is pretty darn good), especially once they've learned it, since the relearning (as we all know) a) costs time/money and b) wouldn't add significantly to the output. Plus, ML is free, has never fried a camera (or so they say ;) ), and it would cost Canon money to solve a problem that doesn't exist for those users.<br>

Of course that means they are neglecting a very small niche market. ie folks like us, who don't want the hassle of installing a 'FW hack', and don't do it enough to learn to use the tool, but still want the features of a reasonable VC. oh well. Maybe they will change their minds?<br>

</p>

<p>I don't miss focus peaking one iota. But then I have little use for video since it is difficult to frame and mat and I've never been a fan of TV or movies. Videos are so boring. I'd rather see a sales model where video shooters pay extra to enable video features and still shooters can buy an EOS cheaper if devoid of video features.</p>

<p>The EOS line is above all, designed to be a still camera. DSLR video is a sidecar or afterthought in terms of design. I'm sure plenty of easy to implement goodies are being withheld so the well-heeled can purchase Canon's dedicated video gear. If Canon gave you everything in their DSLRs there would be no need to spend big bucks for the likes of an XH G1S.</p>

<p>Puppy Face: Focus peeking is really useful for manual focusing of stills for cameras with Live View and/or electronic viewfinders, way better than 5x and 10x magnification in LV/EVF. Actually, "really useful" is an understatement, it is the best manual focusing method this side of split and microraster prisms.</p>

<p>How obvious is that? I never even thought of using it for MF still work - of course most of my MF work is done through the VF, but for those who use LV... <br>

... of course for it to be <em>really</em> useful for stills, the lens would need to be stopped down to give appropriate DOF (another 'feature' that it would be nice to enable w/n the menu system (thanks Canon!), or have the preview button replaced with a switchable button).</p>

 

<p>Dan: Well, the edges of the object(s) in the plane of focus are highlited so it is obvious. For any type of work requiring focus peaking (sorry for my misspelings of this word in the posts above) it might be better to leave DOF alone because it can be calculated/dervied when needed. What's really important is the actual plane of focus. <br>

Of course focus peaking is not a cure for all focusing ills but in deliberate work with MF lenses, or in MF mode, it is very helpful. </p>

<p>For one thing, many of us in the SLR world still do our work through the <em>optical</em> viewfinder.<br>

It is tricky to figure out how this would work in anything but Live View, except that there is an equivalent - it's called the depth-preview button. Admittedly, not as useful as it used to be on the better viewfinders of old film cameras.</p>

<p>Yes, not a fan of live view yet: too small and dim to be useful for me. Love that huge optical viewfinder with diopter correction and big rubber eyecup. I can use LV if I remember to bring my reading glasses but ambient light is still too bright here in Honolulu.</p>