Template talk:Canon EOS digital cameras/Archive 1

7D positioning

The 7D was announced in September '09 and released to the public at the beginning of October. It is positioned on the table as if it were announced/released half-way though the year. Even though the 1D Mk4 was announced october, after it (which the table now shows) I would still suggest starting the 7D's time-line from the last quarter of 2009 (even though you would then not be able to see that the 1D4 was announced/released afterwards). Edam (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, placing the 7D in Q3'09 makes it look like it was released in Q3'09, which it was. Implementing your suggestion would be factually incorrect as you yourself have pointed out. This is what happens when the timeline resolution is to the nearest quarter. If this is not sufficient for your tastes, feel free to modify the template to provide better resolution - but do so only if you can maintain the same level of legibility. 68.230.115.87 (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

EOS 450D

I have read that this new EOS entry level is not the succesor to the 400D but will be placed between the 400D and the 40D. In other words a the box needs editing to show this. Not my field of expertise so if someone else good change it for me.

Link to the website reference: (First paragraph)

'Camera labs' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadmanwalking2 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but Camera Labs directly contradicts itself with its first sentence: "As the successor to the best-selling DSLR of the last 18 months (i.e. 400D Rebel XTi)". The 450D is still the succesor the the 400D, it's just that they aren't taking the 400D out of production, instead selling it as a budget entry-level camera. Canon did the same with the 350D Rebel XT as well. Tejastheory (talk) 10:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Launch Dates?

Is it necessary to include these in the template? I think we should rely on the articles themselves to provide this info. IMHO info on the quarter in which its realeased is fine enough for a template. For comparison, car articles (BMW, Nissan) show these succession boxes using only the year of introduction. More specific details are then left to the articles themselves. A reader of the succession infobox is interested in "information at a glance". If there is a specific model he wants more info on (including launch dates) he would go to the article. Zunaid©^{Please rate me at Editor Review!} 13:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I started this infobox adding launch dates because they weren't organized in the articles, neither always present, I looked for it in dpreview timetables. This precision was adding information, it should be replaced in each article. It should be useful to add a field into the Template:Infobox_Digicam. My inspiration were car timetables, indeed, and I put some thoughts for the quarters divisions. --Marc Lacoste 23:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Low end Prosumer

Consumer cams are like the G6. The 350D is a low end prosumer camera

Just because it has a tiny pentaprism up the top of it doesn't determine if it aimed for people who are amatuers, or amatuers who brag that they make money. The lowest end of Canon's SLR range, digital or film has always been considered to be aimed soley at the consumer. To justify this, Canon advertises more about the cameras creative modes instead of the manual modes, the latter more preferred by a working professional or advanced amateur. Price tag and build quality also are factors that come into play. (UTC)

Prosumer/Semi Pro

I have updated the template as follows: Before: "Prosumer" After: "Prosumer/Semi Pro"

I added Semi Pro to what was originally only "Prosumer - APC-C" because the articles for these cameras all refer to them as Semi Pro, and most users do too. Furthermore, the Canon 40D is now superior in many ways except megepixel and framesize and is popular as a second camera for professionals, therefore, I beleive the 40D and it's predecessors deserve both designations as they are targetted at both the Prosumer market and Semi Professional markets. Canberra photographer (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup cant disagree with that, some are calling it the Baby Canon EOS-1D Mark III --122.104.43.105 (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think, for the sake of clarity, it should just be Semi Pro or Prosumer, and the 5D should be relabeled to either one. "Prosumer" and "semi pro" don't imply vastly different levels to me - both simply indicate a level between professional and consumer. I would suggest "prosumer" as it seems the more widely used term (we have a prosumer article but no semi pro). I'll change both 5D and the D30-40D line into "prosumer" if there are no objections. Tejastheory (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed both to read prosumer, per no objections. Tejastheory (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I think anything between "clearly aimed at consumers only" and "clearly aimed at professionals only" is pretty subjective, and it's a lot clearer this way. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 07:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

40D Promoted to Prosumer/Semi Pro High Res

In "From Camera to Print" by the the Luminous Landscape, 10 mp is considered "high res". For consistency with other manufacturers' wiki pages, I think we should promote the 40D to its own category, Prosumer/Semi Pro High Res, just below the 5D.

I'll make the change, but I'd like a second before I make the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.36.117 (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is getting pretty ridiculous. The 40D is the succesor camera to the 30D, and is largely aimed at the same type of user. It didn't suddenly become a high resolution camera because it gained 2 more megapixels over its predecessor! Are you going to change the Rebel XTi into it's own seperate "high resolution" category? Tejastheory (talk) 09:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, that would be unreasonable. The 400D is clearly a consumer level camera. I'll cut right to the chase: to keep the information on Wikipedia neutral between Canon/Nikon, the 40D should either be promoted to a different category, or the D300 should be demoted to fit with the D200. talk) 20:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

So what is your basis for labeling the 40D as a completely new category? Because of a 2MP increase? The D300 and the Nikon template is Nikon's own issue, so if you disagree with that make the argument there and change it - saying that you should make a decision "because that's what the other page does" is not a good enough justification. Tejastheory (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

450D

Now it stands from Q1 2008. Should it not be from Q2? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.239.51 (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a Q2 release in the US, but a Q1 ("late March") release in UK and I think Japan, so we decided to go with Q3 since that's the first date it's available worldwide. Tejastheory (talk) 19:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Collapse? Why

Why is this template made collapsable? It is that I remember that the template was holding information, and I know how wikipedia works. But still it took me about 10 minutes to figure out why the information was gone. Also it does not work in IE (it creates a javascript error). Taka (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Taka,

I made the change making the table collapsible and collapsed by default; I did so because the table has grown quite large (it is 1 heading + 34 quarters wide!), and while it is very useful, I find it distractingly bulky at the end of every Canon body page. The common solution for such large tables is to make them collapsible; see Wikipedia:Collapsible tables.

It's worth having a discussion about the size of the table; in the current format, come 2015, the table will be over 60 cells wide. I'm guessing that we'll move to having a table per decade, as in car model pages. For now I think it's big enough that it should be collapsed (presuming the code works), but not so big that it needs breaking up.

User:R. Koot (also Dutch, incidentally) maintains the Collapsible tables code; if it doesn't work for you, could you get in touch with him so he can fix it?

Thanks!

Nbarth (email) (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you did and why. But if it breaks the page in IE and makes the information in practice impossible to find in other browsers, then I don't think it is a good change. I have no intention to get deeply involved in this. I just noticed the issue and did what I thought was best fix the issue.

The code gives an error in IE. A substantial number of internet users (if not a majority) uses IE, so that seems quite an important argument to not use the collapse code. Taka (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the better solution, if it gets too big, is to simply start using years rather than quarters. Collapsing it renders the information invisible to the casual user - it's not seen immediately, it can't be searched, and you have to scroll all the way to the bottom (beyond See Also, References, and External links) just to even know it's there. I also don't see how it can be "distracting" if it's all the way at the *end* of the page - you can't even see it while you're reading the article's main text. Tejastheory (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Good suggestion, Tejastheory. When it gets too big, switch to years rather than quarters. Or perhaps keep quarters for the last two years, and do it by year for everything before that. In 2010, not too many people will care if a camera came out in Q1 1999 or Q2 1999. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 19:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're not going to be accurate then why bother at all? Just make a list of each line and call it quits. I don't agree with that approach.

This is an encyclopedia and pruning out details because of time is a really bad reason since, well, time isn't going to end any time soon. By extension of Moxfyre's point: in 2040 who's going to care what year the 10D came out? Heck, who's going to care what decade in 100 years?

Keep the quarters and make a another template when appropriate. Eventually Timeline of Canon EOS cameras or something. Cburnett (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of accuracy, it's an issue of precision. In 100 years, when we want a quick overview of the information in a timeline, most people probably won't care about precision down to the quarter (by that extension, why don't we start listing exact dates of availability?). Removing precision doesn't mean the information is lost - if anyone really wants to find that information, they can just simply read the article page for the actual camera Tejastheory (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy vs. precision is argument for chemistry, physics, and pedanticism. My point still remains: just make it a list, but I disagree with doing so. Cburnett (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not pedantic. You said it would make the table inaccurate, which implies the information is wrong, and that's simply not true. Listing by years or decades or whatever simply means the information is not as precise - the full information isn't apparent from the table. And that's fine, the table is there to give a rough idea, it's not meant to convey all the tiny bits of release information - we have actual articles for that. Tejastheory (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, still not in chem class. Cburnett (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tejastheory again. No one's suggesting removing useful and precise information. We're just suggesting organizing it in a non-overwhelming fashion in this template. The whole "chemistry, physics, pedantic" thing seems rather juvenile to me. Accuracy and precision (often known as precision and recall) are quite general and important concepts in information retrieval, and are quite relevant to figuring out how to organize an encyclopedia for maximum usefulness. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 23:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one being the word nazi here, so place the juvenile label correctly. Pissing on about precision vs. accuracy gets us nowhere (this comment is further proof) when my meaning is quite clear. If you don't care about the goddamn precision then just make it a list. I was clearly not advocating putting in wrong information but Tejastheory had to ride the high horse and banter about my word choice. Seriously. Cburnett (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested removing the exact release dates from the individual cameras' articles. That information will still be available. The point of this template is 'NOT' to be the unique, authoritative source of encyclopedia information on camera release dates. The point is to 'aggregate' that information in a useful timeline form. By your logic (sort of), it might be more appropriate to list individual release dates... Jan 1, 2004, Jan 2, 2004, etc. :-) ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 23:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I never suggested removing the exact release dates from the individual camera's articles, either. Who are you arguing with because you're clearly not arguing points I've made.

I'm not going to summarize my point again because it was fine the way it was. Reread if you must. Cburnett (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I think moxfyre's point was that you disagreed with rounding out the quarters to years. My point (and his, unless I'm wrong), is that the template is simply an accessible, organized view of the information. It doesn't have to have quarters, it doesn't have to have exact dates. Years could be fine, and if someone wants to find the exact date, they can read the actual article. If you want to go create a list, that's an entirely different issue. I'd encourage you to go make one and then maybe we can go take a look at it, because it's not very clear from your description how it would look like. Tejastheory (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree because of the argument. If no one cares about quarters in 2 years then no one will care about decades in a 100 years so scratch the whole deal and make them lists. But I disagree with doing that. Cburnett (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mediation/discussion

If any of you are interested, there is also discussion at Template_talk:Nikon_DSLR_cameras and Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-03-31_Nikon_DSLR_cameras

I think we should work to create a consistent series classification policy for all of the camera templates. Tejastheory (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Aesthetics?

Someone undid my revision [1] to the template, where I put the North American and Japanese names of the xxxD and xxxxD models, just like how the Template:Canon EOS film cameras has ever been. Someone please tell me which is better. If this template should only contain European names just for aesthetics I suggest to do the same for the film camera series template as well.

Kakero (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100%. This is the English version of wikipedia. That means anyone from Canada, or the United states, will read theses articles. So to have North American names along European names makes sense. And since you point out that the film EOS template has Japaneses names too, we must keep continuity among the templates.

Nebrot (talk) 10:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Release Quarters

Why were the release quarters changed for all the cameras models? This does not makes sense, I thought the template was based on fiscal quarters? Nebrot (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Fiscal year is different in every country. --Sergey Shandar (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

http://resources.lawinfo.com/en/Legal-FAQs/Labor-Employment/Ohio/what-is-a-calendar-quarter.html --Sergey Shandar (talk) 05:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Green background on FF

Canon has two specific product lines for full-frame digital SLR cameras, 1Ds and 5D models. It is even marked by a subheader column. Is the green background on the full-frame cameras really necessary? Kakero (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Timeline heading

Please remove the "Timeline" heading from this template. It breaks layout. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Precursors to the D30

Why are those (EOS DCS 3, EOS DCS 1, EOS D2000, EOS D6000 - visible here: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/dslr/chrono_1995-2004.html ) not included here? because they weren't widespread or what is the reason? IOOI (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

See Kodak_DCS, and Canon_EOS_D2000. So more like Frankenstein cameras. So to claim them as "Canon" manufactured cameras is not completely factual. Canon did throw there name on them, and somewhat modified them, but for the most part they're derived from Kodak DCS. Does this mean they should not be included in the template, I'm not completely sure. But there is some reason for them to not be included. Nebrot (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)