This article 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands 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.
Article is full of advert buzzwords like "unseen number" (by whom?), "ultra fast", "high performance", "super", "new" (compared to what?). Almost every manufacturer has essentially same technologies under different names, so this confuses reader.(Proof it: Expeed 3, VCM, STM, CX-format, interchangeable-lens camera with phase-detection in image-sensor: ALL that existed before???)22.214.171.124 (talk) Only positive sides of product are mentioned in the article and negative sides are either removed or re-worded to be good ones. While I do not state that anonymous editor acts with that purpose, the article is very advert-like and has to stay with template to alert readers until these issues are fixed.Alliumnsk (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Finally details. Comment:
unseen removed (also its true)
Ultra-fast is true and appropriate, world-record
high performance: your error
Super: Its the name!
New: Its raw info, OBVIOUSLY compared to previous existing parts
Only positive: That what some parts DO: for example new processors are often cheaper, more powerful and consume less power. Other parts have disadvantages and are listed without valuation. Its always not easy to write about products. Worst: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1: Even the warnings placed by me aren't enough! 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Picking bad examples as excuse for own's bad style is against Wikipedia rules.(Sadly you picked this answer)188.8.131.52 (talk) Note, however, that in that article DOES HAVE warning templates.(read above)184.108.40.206 (talk) Every manufacter has similar Super-Puper Shining Names, that's not a reason to clutter article with them, confusing readers.(Wrong, its confusing using YOUR fantasy-names)220.127.116.11 (talk) Alliumnsk (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
You have to get at least a basic understanding what you calculate. While the statement is matematically correct, it is useless because it gives e.g. head portrait instead of full-height portrait with shallow DOF (which do "these" want). If photographer moves away so subject fits in frame - DOF increases. Moreover, the wording itself is non-encyclopedic ("for those") and POV. Alliumnsk (talk) 06:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Example removed. Thank you very much for giving any reasons for your revert. Sorry, it can be seen as my first error ever, in thousands of edits, not explaining the different magnification. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)