why no face recognition in DSLRs?

[ryansmith111]

I'm about to take the plunge into DSLR from my Panasonic superzoom, and I notice that newer non-DSLR cameras from most manufacturers include face recognition autofocus, but no DSLR cameras do.

Will this feature get added to DSLRs or is this a point and shoot only feature. Basically, I don't want to drop $1K on a camera body only to have them announce an update a week later that includes a feature I might really want. Face-AF seems like it might be handy to have.

I know there will always be newer models, and its more about the glass than the camera body. I'm just not in a terrible rush, and would be able to wait until later this year if there were a compelling reason. If not, then I'll just let the money burn a whole in my pocket and buy now :o).

Any thoughts?

[inkista]

Pretty sure this is not a feature anyone considers putting into a dSLR. The reason you need it in a P&S is because P&Ses are trying to take decisions away from you (i.e., "where do you want to focus"?) to make photo-taking easier. SLRs are all about manual control so that you can make all the decisions yourself. SLR shooters are the camera equivalent of those who like to drive stick. :) With an SLR, you can pretty just decide if you want dad's face or the horse's ass in focus and set the focus accordingly.

In addition, P&Ses rarely have to deal with thin depth-of-field (smaller sensors, and a stopped-down-to-get-everything-in-focus mentality in the programming), so you don't have the fine-grained control to, say, get someone's eyes in focus, but not their nose or ears. dSLRs can do that--they can give you full manual control, because sometimes the autofocus is just plain stupid or wrong.

[Saralonde]

I agree with Inkista. The whole point of dslrs is to allow the photographer have have control over the image. Another complaint lot of people new to dslrs have is that their shots were sharper with their point and shoots. That, too, is a decision the photographer will want to make in editing. The new features they will be putting into dslrs will not include things like that.

[mdwsta4]

i agree with the above comments as well.
if anything, i would say that DSLRs have multiple autofocus pionts which would essentially be the same as face recognition points on a P&S

[ryansmith111]

Thank you all for your quick and helpful responses.

I guess there isn't a good reason to wait - so I get to buy one soon. Sweet! :D

Now to review all the Canon vs Nikon threads here and the reviews at dpreview.com to decide which to buy!

The money is already smoldering through my wallet.

[Saralonde]

Ask if you need help. I'm sure you'll find lots of Nikonians, Canonites, Olympians, etc. ready to persuade you;)!

[thekevinmonster]

I'm going to chime in as a total amateur on this face recognition thing...

one of the first things I did with my P&S, and my K100d (with its 11 AF points or whatever) was put the AF point right in the center.

I suppose with manual focusing, it might be a help, as the k100d helpfully indicates a 'focused' area when it comes into focus, but otherwise all those AF points just tend to get it wrong. Nothing like having the camera decide a little leaf is what you want to see, when you're aiming at a car beyond the leaf. With the point in the center, you put the point on what you want, focus, then recompose.

I guess it's good when you want to pick up the camera and take a shot without doing ANYTHING else, but I never do that.

[inkista]

Yup. Setting center-AF-point-only is vital to getting the AF system to do what you want. I sometimes wonder if anyone uses the full array. :) One of the main reasons I moved to dSLR was to get back full control over focus. I really missed manual focusing with precision when I moved from my old Olympus OM-10 to a digital P&S.

The other basic "trick" to learn in mastering autofocus is to aim for an area of high contrast (i.e., where black meets white).

[waffles]

In addition to my less than stellar basketball pictures, my friend's experience at one of my softball games really made me want a DSLR.

He was sitting in the stands and was trying to take pictures through the fence. I think they would have come out really cool if they had worked right. The problem was that the camera focused on the fence and he had no way of changing that.

[smc1377]

In addition to my less than stellar basketball pictures, my friend's experience at one of my softball games really made me want a DSLR.

He was sitting in the stands and was trying to take pictures through the fence. I think they would have come out really cool if they had worked right. The problem was that the camera focused on the fence and he had no way of changing that.

There are ways to trick point and shoot cameras in this situation. Find another object that is about the same distance away from you as the softball player you're trying to take a picture of. Simply focus your camera on that object, half-way depress your shutter button, then aim the camera at the softball player, then take the picture. You're just basically locking the focus, then framing the subject, then shooting.

[waffles]

I wish I had been able to tell him that, but I didn't even know he was trying to get pictures.

[mattdm]

Yup. Setting center-AF-point-only is vital to getting the AF system to do what you want. I sometimes wonder if anyone uses the full array. :)

I do, on my 11-point AF Pentax K100D. I thought at first that I'd only use the center point, but after using it for a while, I find it much easier (and more accurate) to select the desired point for my composition than the old focus-and-recompose tactic. I agree that having the camera pick which point to use automatically is frustrating.

On the original point: P&S cameras use the full image sensor for tricks like face detection and for metering. SLRs tend to have little specialized sensors instead (because, among other things, the main sensor isn't in use with the mirror down). I image that in the not-so-far future, it will be commonplace for dSLRs to use a small P&S sensor in addition to the main one to provide live view (as in Olympus's camera which does this now) and at the same to to offer 200+ AF points and gimmicks (not that it's a bad gimmick) like face detection.

[Tiberius]

Yup. Setting center-AF-point-only is vital to getting the AF system to do what you want. I sometimes wonder if anyone uses the full array. :)

I know I don't! :D

[Mefistofeles]

With an SLR, you can pretty just decide if you want dad's face or the horse's ass in focus and set the focus accordingly.


Yo! dad... quit smiling, 'am looking at Mr Eds sexy behind. :D

Super-Ultra-Mega-LoL

[wulf]

What is this auto focus thing you speak of? ;)

Wulf (happily manual most of the time, thanks to D40 limitations and brilliant, cheap old lenses!)

[velvet4269]

LOL ... Wulf, I'm glad I'm not the only one. About the only time I seem to use AF is when I'm doing self-portraits - and I still get frustrated with it, because it *never* focuses where I need it to ;)

ETA: that said, when I mentioned to the <u>professional</u> photographer I know, that I was trying to learn (and loving) manual focus, the first thing he asked me was a very confused "Why??" ;)

[jdepould]

I'd be dead in the water without AF, especially for sports. I did have one huge AF failure at a nighttime football game (turned out it was a low light lens/camera compatibility issue), and resorted to MF. 85% of the pictures from that game were OOF, but I did get some good useable frames.

My D300 has 51 AF points, which is about 45 too many for me.

[ShepArt]

What is this auto focus thing you speak of? ;)

Wulf (happily manual most of the time, thanks to D40 limitations and brilliant, cheap old lenses!)

Wulf, auto focus is when you are taking a photo of a car.... :D

[Major_Small]

I, too almost never use AF. The only time I do is in low light when I need the camera to strobe and find focus. In those cases, I switch it up to focus on the center point. Other than that, I keep all points active just to verify my manual focusing, even though I've stopped paying attention to that most of the time as well.

I suppose if I started shooting stuff that needed faster reaction times, I'd use the AF servo, and probably switch from full manual to Tv or something like that, but so far all of my subjects have been relatively static.

[inkista]

Autofocus (with a USM lens) is what you need to get this:

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/inkista/332282713/" title="kite by inkista, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/148/332282713_0846ec1482.jpg" width="500" height="304" alt="kite" /></a>

I think I had half a second. Maybe less. And at 400mm with a fast-flying object, it's enough to do just to keep the bird in frame and properly exposed.

Don't get me wrong. I used a manual-focus Olympus OM-10 for twenty years, so when I first got my XT, I kept turning AF off and manually focusing everything (I also kept feeling for an aperture ring, but that's another story). Then I did some pixel-peeping side-by-side comparisons and realized the AF was more accurate than I was half the time (stupid matte focus screen!) At that point, I just let it loose. Now, I only manually focus when the AF fails me, I'm using a very thin DoF and need to select a focus point, or I'm shooting panos.

Birding taught me that not only autofocus, but also USM is a necessity for bird-in-flight shots. My 75-300 III's AF was so slow (especially with a 1.4x tc) that I was manually focusing bird-in-flight shots faster, but my keeper rate multiplied by 100 when I got a USM lens and let the AF drive.