Template talk:DSLR cameras with movie mode

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Technology (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Photography (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.
 

This is a silly template[edit]

Having a template for bodies that have one particular feature. Are we going to next have a template for bodies that have in-camera IS/VR? --rogerd (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I don't get it either... Nebrot (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
It might have made sense when dSLR video was a new and rare feature, but this should probably go to TfD when most current models have video. -207.47.25.98 (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, most new DSLRs have movie mode, just like liveview. We should retire this template in the future... Raysonho (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Personally I find it useful. Video is still not a feature that's completely standard yet across manufacturers. it would be helpful if it differentiated 720p and 1080p though. —Pengo 08:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I'm becoming inclined to agree. When I created this template, movie mode in a DSLR was a new and not particularly common feature. Now, it's not common that a DSLR comes out without movie recording. It was useful in its day, but now is the time to retire it. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 04:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I too agree, it is perhaps a good idea to put this template to rest. Jovian Eye talk 05:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

... and, maybe before you put it to rest (I agree with that particular sentiment), you should also include Olympus models that have movie mode, too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.79.246 (talk) 22:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

This template can certainly still hold value if it had just a little more info in it, for instance what cameras have 60P? (or 4K, which will become increasingly common) Mathmo Talk 10:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Further issue: whither MILC?[edit]

I was trying to figure out where the EOS M needs to be added, and found that Panasonic and Olympus MILCs are classified as "mid-range" or "entry-level", whereas those from Nikon are classified as "MILC", with the "mid-range" and "entry-level" categories apparently reserved for DSLRs. Yet again, for Pentax, the K-01 (a MILC) is listed as "entry-level". What gives? Samsara (FA  FP) 17:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

(Transferred from talk)

Clean up that template, please[edit]

Mate, if you're going to kick up a fuss about stuff, please clean up behind yourself. I've asked you before to look into the situation that you created at that template. Please fix it if you won't let others do the job. Samsara (FA  FP) 10:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I already asked you to calm down: Change your tone.
Although critizised, this template gives a good navigation for latest DSLRs and MILCs.
Nikon's MILC aren't differentiated, Olympus and Panasonic are, but no space to mention that this are MILCs. Pentax and others show a space problem about MILCs.
Solution: Background colours: No for DSLR (standard), others for SLT and MILC. Tagremover (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any background colour differentiation, nor a legend that explains this. Where have you implemented this? Samsara (FA  FP) 18:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Backgrounds[edit]

Done some things. Should make this template fit for the next time.

As mentioned: Although critizised, this template gives a good navigation for latest DSLRs, SLTs and MILCs. Tagremover (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Question: "HD video" vs. "movie mode"[edit]

The name of the template implies that these cameras have movie mode, but the header says "HD video". Are there DSLR/SLT/MILC that support video, but not HD video? Samsara (FA  FP) 13:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  1. I wanted to make it clear
  2. also for the future
  3. For READERS (Wikipedia is for readers) not firm with the subject i wanted to inform about the capabilities and usability. Tagremover (talk) 13:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of this template?[edit]

Seeing this template being added to alot of articles on my watchlist this morning and before more effort is put into it, I'd like to raise the question on its usefulness.

I'm afraid, I don't see much of a purpose, given that virtually any new DSLR/MILC camera introduced since 2011 is capable of HD video, so that this list basically becomes a list of new camera models. As some vendors are almost approaching 6-month life cycles for the lower end models, this table will very soon be a list of hundreds of models, many of which are already no longer available. Is this really useful?

The template will require constant maintenance and soon become unmanageable, anyway. Even in the current still incomplete and partially misleading form (as not all models are listed), it takes up alot of space in the articles, where it has been included, sometimes more, than the (stub) article itself - this looks rather odd, given that there are far more important things to present in an article on a photo camera than its video capability. Doesn't a link to a list serve the purpose better than including the table itself in articles?

Also, the template is a misnomer as it does not only cover "DSLRs" (and I count SLTs as a special type of DSLRs), but MILCs as well. And it does not cover cameras "with movie mode", but only shows "HD video"-capable cameras (and not even all of them), which is technically a very vague term in itself as well.

Finally, cameras optimized for video operation are not even mentioned. I mean, if someone seriously wants to shoot movies except for an occasional video snapshot, he will first look for tools designed and optimized for this purpose, video cameras and camcorders, not for a photo camera with a video feature...

I don't want to go as far as to propose the deletion of the template, given how much effort has been put into it already, but I would find it appropriate to start fading out its usage in articles instead of introducing it to even more of them.

And if we really need a navigational template for "current DSLR(-like) cameras", perhaps we should rework this into template for this purpose (personally I don't think we need this, though).

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There are currently DSLR-listing templates for each brand separately (not sure all brands are covered yet, but this ought to be done). I believe we have articles that give clear definitions of what is and isn't HD, regardless of what may be happening in the marketplace. I'm not sure how you would achieve a clearer definition of "optimised for video" - that seems even more subjective. I was about to suggest a moving of the template to a new name, which is why I asked the previous question. Samsara (FA  FP) 14:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Moving to a new name can be done - Although i do not think its necessary. But: All templates have to be redirected, as the template function does not support redirect. Surely this can be done with a bot. Tagremover (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I think a list article would be good, as more information could be presented. For instance, it's not very easy to see from the template at what point each camera maker started having video. Additional relevant data would include frame rates and maximum resolutions (although this can get hairy when looking at different max frame rates at different resolutions).Samsara (FA  FP) 14:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Given the amount of energy you both put into this template, I can understand that you are now enthusiastic about it. The template as is is fine and I really don't want to disappoint you, but the more I think about it the more I find it would be better to convert this into a "List of" article. It is somewhat distracting to see it included in all sorts of camera articles where video never was an important topic (the fact that a camera supports HD video does not automatically make it important unless it is discussed in details in the article). It looks rather obtrusive this way (almost like SPAM). Changing this into a list linked from articles specifically discussing video capabilities, readers could click the link if they are interested in further information instead of finding a significant portion of their screen being occupied with information they may not even remotely be interested in... For example, I think the template is fine in articles like Mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera, but it does not belong into the camera articles. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh, trust me, I'm not particularly attached to it, and wouldn't have a problem with seeing it converted to a list. It also struck me when I first looked at it that it will very quickly fill up as new cameras are released in 2013. Template creep can be a problem; we also have many undeveloped camera articles, where perhaps the information that is now going into this template should go into the infoboxen. Cheers. Samsara (FA  FP) 03:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Template:DSLR cameras with movie modeTemplate:Digital system cameras with HD movie modeRelisted. BDD (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Samsara (FA  FP) 14:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. Most of the cameras listed on the template are now MILCs, not to mention SLTs. DSLRs are at about a 1/3 minority now. Additionally, the name and header of the template should agree. If it's HD video, that should be in the name as well. Samsara (FA  FP) 14:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment: Moving to a new name can be done - Although i do not think its necessary. But: All template links have to be redirected, as the template function does not support redirect. Surely this can be done with a bot (but don't ask me). Tagremover (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • conditional oppose not all cameras have always had HD movie modes. It should not say "HD". Remember Wikipedia is not restricted to what is currently on the market. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. In my opinion, template names are not very important, and can be just about anything. Changing template names is not really worth the effort it takes, unless an obvious conflict needs to be corrected. Apteva (talk) 05:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Digital system cameras" is not a good title. And: its not needed: only important for editors. Tagremover (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Made a redirect, if someone prefers it. Tagremover (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Firmware updates[edit]

Will this table show features added to cameras via firmware updates? Canon will release a firmware update that adds uncompressed HD video capability to the 5D MkIII in April. SwineFlew? (talk) 04:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Optional WiFi[edit]

Since quite few cameras feature optional WiFi implemented in various ways (i.e. Nikon WU-1a, Canon WFT-E6 or Pentax FLU CARD) that enable users much more than simply transfer images taken, what was the basis of including following statement in template "Optional WiFi less notable (Eye-Fi and others)"? Is there any logical reason for including optional GPS and not including optional WiFi? I propose adding optional WiFi designation (w) for cameras that are capable of being controlled through WiFi with optional add-on. 77.46.73.5 (talk) 07:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to include ALL optional Wifi cams: Most cams therefore less notable, but possible.
Just adding ONE or SEVERAL or your preferred brand is NOT enough. Please start only if you want to complete the work because actually its only you interested implementing this. 77.188.99.224 (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Nice of you to know which cams have optional wifi control, it'll be easy to add them then. You wouldn't claim otherwise that most of them do, would you? Feel free to add them then. (I'd guess most of them DON'T, but it seems you have done the count) Don't claim it's not notable enough and revert just because no one started it doing yet. There always must be first step. 77.46.73.5 (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Obviously you don't know that most cams in this template do. Stop reverting and see that adding only 1 or several gives too much weight to your preferred cam.
Your small edit is additionally worthless: If its so easy to EXACTLY check and add all cams do it. 77.188.99.224 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Obviously time spent by you on preventing me from adding more data and presenting more balanced view on the cameras' features would be better spent actually helping me out. Only thing worthless here is your self-righteous view what is notable and what is not, skewing whole list in favor of built-in feature when other feature already is presented, despite the fact it's partially served by add-on.
After browsing through 9 camera brands catalogs featured in this template, I've found only 3 of them present an optional wi-fi solution: Canon, Nikon and Pentax. 6 don't seem to offer it. Out of 133 cameras (i'll be adding Olympus OM-D E-M10) 33 are offering built-in wifi. Fuji XT-1, Olympus EP-5, E-M1, E-M10 look like having built-in control capable wifi, not being marked on the list as having for now though (or E-M10 missing entirely).
So for now I have 133 cameras, 23 built-in wifi, 2 Pentax cameras confirmed add-on only wifi and 67 cameras from 7 brands, other than Canon and Nikon, that don't seem to have wifi control capability neither built-in nor through camera maker's add-on.
Therefore less than half cameras from the list seem to possess wifi control capability in any form provided by the manufacturer and that seems notable enough and presenting more balanced view to include add-ons.77.46.73.5 (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. Stop reverting unless you are knowing a little bit.
  2. You are WRONG and irrational: Out of the MANY OPTIONAL ADAPTERS you already listed above the Nikon WU-1a, Canon WFT-E6. What do you think are they for??? Think much harder. For example EVERY Nikon and (nearly?) every Canon does opt. Wifi with cam control, what Pentax-Fans now seem to believe to be the greatest news.
  3. I already told reasons above. 77.12.174.77 (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're just irrational or plain malignant. I have already stated that only manufacturers I've confirmed having optional WiFi control are: Canon, Nikon and Pentax. Do you claim otherwise? Are you simply throwing a tantrum because you can't accept being wrong? Point me to the other manufacturers (Panasonic, Leica, Fuji, Olympus, Sony, Samsung) WiFi add-ons for their DSLRs/SLTs/MILCs, because i couldn't seem to find any. Surely you know more, than why won't you share your knowledge instead of sabotaging someones else effort? 77.46.73.5 (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Behave. Its unbalanced and POV only to add Pentax, when others can do it too.

Ok, i checked: You seem to be right: Im only unsure about the cheap Canon series and the M. 77.12.174.77 (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)