Template talk:Canon EOS digital cameras

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Canon DSLR cameras)
Jump to: navigation, search
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 project's quality scale.


I gave this camera its own row. It is introduced at 800 USD. Even if the price goes down over time, it is clear that Canon does not intend these cameras to compete with the 400 USD bodies of other manufacturers. Furthermore I could not find a single source on the web that claims the 100D is to replace the 1000D.-- (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

1D X[edit]

There seems to be an issue with where the 1D X should fall in the template. I believe that the confusion comes from Canon's press release indicating that the 1D X will be replacing both the 1D and 1Ds series. However, based on the design of the template, the 1D X is full frame and should not occupy a row reserved for DSLRs with APS-H sensors. Perhaps expanding the "Flagship" category to 3 rows with the top 2 for "Full" and the bottom 1 for "APS-H" would solve this problem. The 1Ds series could occupy the top row with the 1D series on the third. They could both stop at the end of Q4-2011 (or continue to Q1-2012 or whenever production actually stops). The 1D X could then start by itself on the second row at Q1-2012. I do not seem to have the skill to adjust the template in this fashion. If others believe this is a good approach, maybe someone with better coding skills could implement this. Johnnyacid (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

No green background for DSLRs with video![edit]

I don't know how to edit this, but I strongly suggest that someone remove the green background behind the cameras with video capabilities. The timeline doesn't say anything about the specifications of the cameras except for the video function, and I find it very strange that a feature like that is the only feature that's shown. There are other features that I think is more or equally important (sensor-size, body construction (weather sealing), FPS etc.). When features like this are not indicated in the timeline then video shouldn't either. Also, from now on, every camera will probably have video, so in the future there will be no need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This page [1] on a Canon rumour site has a very similar table to this template (not sure who copied whom), but uses different colours to distinguish the DIGIC chip revision. We could do a similar thing with background colour to indicate DIGIC 1,2,3,4,5. I agree that video capability is a rather arbitrary choice for the sole feature to highlight, but shading by DIGIC chip would retain this info as the video models are all DIGIC 4 or later. WikiWikiPhil (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Feeling bold, I've made this change. I think it shows the generations of camera quite nicely, which is more interesting at a glance than which models have video. WikiWikiPhil (talk) 23:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Good change. It is highly unlikely that any future Digital EOS will not have video capabilities. decltype (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
It does not matter what processor a camera uses. It is not a desktop computer. I suspect that most photographers don't know or care what processor a camera uses. This information is totally irrelevant. --Racklever (talk) 07:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
If it's irrelevant, then just ignore it. The DIGIC version is a good indication of generations of features across the range, rather than picking on one in particular (e.g. video) or trying to annotate more specs into an already-crowded template. If we have a bgcolor scheme at all, what should it be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiWikiPhil (talkcontribs) 12:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
It's hard to tell whether the DIGIC 5 and DIGIC 5+ should be grouped together or separately. It would be nice to have a better description of what exactly the "+" signifies. For now, I've combined them both into the same group. WikiWikiPhil (talk) 01:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Future releases / announcements[edit]

So today we have the EOS-1D C announced for sale in October (2012 Q4). In general, how should the other "current" camera models be displayed? My gut feeling is that we should show future models where there's been an official announcement / press release from Canon, so we'll need to extend the timeline up to 2012 Q4. However, it's possible that the 7D, 60D, 600D, or 1100D will be updated this year, so we shouldn't show their timelines extending into the future; there is no certainty now that they will still be current in 6 months time. A corollary to this is that at the beginning of every quarter the template will need updating to show whether each model is still current. WikiWikiPhil (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that WP:CRYSTALBALL applies so we should not show future models. We do not know which old cameras are going to be discontinued and which new cameras are going to be delayed. --Racklever (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you think the 1D-C and 1DX should be shown today (as "future models")? My reading of WP:CRYSTALBALL, especially point 5, is that unannounced products should not have an article, however this is a template not an article, and those models have been officially announced, so they should be shown. WikiWikiPhil (talk) 12:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I do think that extending all models current in production as long as the timeline goes avoids confusion as an end of production line like the 1D series. This can be easily updated with announcement of new cameras. Jchl97 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchl97 (talkcontribs) 07:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't see how this fits with WP:VERIFY and WP:CRYSTALBALL. I take the point about possible confusion about end dates, but writing that certain models will be current at some future point in time, without a reliable source, is just guesswork. We're not perfect on end dates even with the current template, e.g. the 550D has not been discontinued yet. WikiWikiPhil (talk) 23:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that anything that has been officially announced can be put on here. So, putting the 650D on here is the right choice. Disavian (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested 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 moved. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Template:Canon DSLR camerasTemplate:Canon EOS digital cameras – Canon has recently released the Canon EOS M which isn't a SLR because it doesn't have a mirror. It is however branded as an EOS camera and therefore I believe it should be in this table. There already is a template:Canon EOS film cameras so it would only be logical to also have a digital counterpart, and to not discriminate on the (not) having a mirror. Lonaowna (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2013 (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.

Camera dates[edit]

I edited the dates according to the Canon Camera Museum, http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/dslr/chrono_1995-2004.html

The table has been inconsistent with the dates (press release date, or shipping date), or flat out wrong. (For example, the T4i was announced in June 2012, as seen in the press release, but the bar started in Quarter 1 of 2012. Last time I checked, June was not in the first quarter of the year). The table is now consistent with the Canon Camera Museum, and the press release dates.

I don't think there's a big difference between announcement or release dates (whatever one you pick basically just shifts each row to the left or right), but I hope this is more consistent. I think announcement dates work better simply because of the table's formatting- the reason I went through and checked everything was because the T6i/T6s column was too cramped, and by going by the press release date gives the T6i more space. This makes the formatting better, and the information conveyed is mostly the same.

Teemome (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@Teemome: I think it would be good to set it to the quarter when it is released, as it gives the impression that the camera was on the market longer than it really was. Absent that, I also things like the new 1D and 80D won't be released until at least the next quarter, so it seems silly to indicate otherwise. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree. I was the stupid boy, who set the 80D to first quarter. I will change it. --GodeNehler (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Canon has revamped their Camera Museum website. http://www.canon.com/c-museum/en/camera-dslr-series.html I'm going to use the dates from that website as the date of each camera line, for consistency. Teemome (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

5D3 and 5DS[edit]

The 5DS is not a successor to the 5D3; it is presented as a separate product line, and marketed as such by Canon all throughout 2015. 5D3 production is finally winding down now, in advance of a 5D4 announcement, so it doesn't really make sense to say that the 5DS is the successor to the 5D3.

This is especially obvious if you look at the video feature regression- the 5DS has worse video features than the 5D3, even this timeline can tell you that. The camera that succeeds the 5D3 (probably the 5D4) would not regress on video features. Teemome (talk) 09:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

makes sense to me.signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 10:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

New Table Layout[edit]

I have just seen the new Table layout. I like to see the clean up of the table. Some changes where I think they are going into wrong directions :

  • The 5D III and the new 5DS should have separate lines, because I see this as two different products, produced in parallel. The new 5D IV is just coming up. So I would really split it like for the 1D and 1DS.
  • Only European naming is used, not American one like Rebel or Japanese one like Kiss. Its fine for me as I am coming from Europe, but this is a global page, so I think we should leave all names in.
  • 750/760: I am not sure if should be one line or two. Is this product line split up? Then it should be separated. But this could also be changed later.

Please share your opinion. --GodeNehler (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I have acted boldly to create more space horizontally (addressing #Readability #Split_ideas) and especially challenge the [professional/enthusiast/upper entry/lower entry] categorization which only made sense as a very fuzzy sales rhetoric. The template does not appear on mobile devices and now all lines now pleasingly appear on one line on any HD screens and merely replicate wikipediaarticlenames of the products. Obviously
  • if a 5DMk IV is coming out (but you cannot prolong the 1Ds line with the 5Ds line (high resolution cameras) and the 1D line with the 1DX line (high burst rate cameras) unless the sensorsize APS-H category is somehow taken out of evidence)
  • if the American Rebel and Japanese Kiss naming convention should be maintained on the template
  • If 750D/760D would ultimately split the line up
Then I submit that my proposal (or parts of it as desired) be reverted. Thanks for your consideration. signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs)
In my view, this is an improvement. However, the 5Ds should be on its own line: the 5D3 is still an active product, but the table incorrectly shows it ended back in 2014. (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
[According to canonrumours, the 5Diii has just been taken off the production line, so] there may be production overlap between both cameras, potentially indicating that there are enough 5Diii units on the shelves to honour sales until a replacement model is introduced this year, in which case the 5Ds should have its own row)
Has Canon had production phase-in-phase-out overlaps historically? signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 17:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
From my understanding will be the 5DS and the 5DMkIII/5DMkIV be parallel products...
I think we can leave it like it is for the time beeing. If the 5DMkIV appears, we can still ad an additional row for the 5DS. --GodeNehler (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
So what about 2015? The chart stops the 5D3 in 2014. To answer your question, Canon offered the 60D for quite a while after the release of the 70D. But the 60D was not actively marketed once the 70D was announced, and I'm pretty sure they were just selling off their existing stock. For the past year, Canon has been marketing both the 5D3 and 5Ds/5DsR in their EOS product line. (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, the first time I saw the new table layout, I thought "WTF", and "Why hasn't someone reverted this vandalism yet"... I still can't get used to it and have registered specifically to tell you guys I have a bookmak to the previous version, it's that unusable (for me...) For instance, with the horizontal grouping it was obvious a 10D is superseded by a 20D, but in the current layout the 10D is somehow linked to the 300D. It's also telling me the 7D2, the 80D and the 750D are way more related to each other than they actually are... Maybe it will grow on me over time, but while I can see some people might have a problem with the width of the old layout, for me this cure is worse than the problem. Pnieuwkamp (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

One more suggestion: move the astro 20Da and 60Da models from their own row into the 20D and 60D cells, similar to the 1DX/1DC. (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This template is getting a bit big, but it's mostly too big horizontally, not vertically. Being a bit lenient on vertical space should be fine. Keeping the 20D and the 60D out isn't a big deal. Teemome (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Ooops I think that I was testing your line-height:1.5 edit in a private browser session and unintendedly/unwittingly committed a change back. I donot want an editwar so please change it back if you believe that it is needed.
In my opinion the template is getting far too big vertically and impeding readability, that is why the proposal addresses line-height, line breaks and omitting Rebel/Kiss nomenclature in order to improve readability. However removing line-height altogether is better than keeping line-height:1.5 as they are almost identical with the vector and monobook default styles. signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 10:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
To clean it up horizontally, you could eliminate a lot of useless white space by moving the D30 & D60 down to the "Early models" and start the timeline at 2003. Also, each Early Model name does not need the "Canon". (same IP user here) (talk) 14:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I would not remove the D30 & D60. These are early models... yes. But I think this does not help. In one or two years you have the same problem. For the time being, I would leave it like it is, but long term, I expect best solution is to split the table: either till 2015 and then a new table from 2016 onwards – or for every ten years a table so one from 2000 – 2009 and than from 2010 till 2019... --GodeNehler (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Splitting the table is a bad idea, if only because there's no good place to actually split it. 2010 would be an awkward place to split the table, although it's not better anywhere else. Teemome (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I have created under User:GodeNehler/sandbox a version, which is rotated by 90°. Please check, if this is a better solution. My comment: it is much bigger (longer). But it might be a solution. If you think it is a good idea, I can move it to here. --GodeNehler (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Good work. I think that your sandbox deserves everybody's attention even if it goes against conventional horizontal timeline templates. I edited your sandbox but I am not sure that I am allowed to that because it is your userspace! Please move your sandbox here so that everybody can pitch in. signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 11:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Donan Raven, your improvement idea is not what I have expected, but it is good. I would prefer if the columns have equal size, but it is a starting point. I have put the template below. --GodeNehler (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the fixed width column styling is much more aesthetic. I thought that automatic width may improve readability on narrow mobile screens but forgot that mobile devies donot display templates by default anyway, so this was a regression perhaps? --> reverted. signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 11:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
For me it looks fine. --GodeNehler (talk) 17:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Mozilla Firefox 45 exhibits a strange artifact in the middle of the 350D's cell (the thick solid border carries over). doesn't replicate in chrome or opera though: strange. signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 23:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes I can see the same. If I go over the 350D and link is activated, the problem is partly fixed in the area of the text. I see the same issue at the 1 DX. I would rate it a browser problem and not a layout problem. Ignore it? --GodeNehler (talk) 07:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The massive amount of horizontal lines is distracting. The table also isn't a good UI experience, it's hard to follow vertically. Teemome (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
edit to address above statement - now there are as many cells/lines in the transposed table below as in the original production table
note1: a quarter column is necessary and is visible in Mozilla Firefox v45
>it's hard to follow vertically - granted, the height of the quarters in the transposed table below is certainly less then the width of the quarters in the original production table
note2: at this point the quarters start to become irrelevant, perhaps noting the year of introduction is sufficient?
signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 16:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I have tried dashed lines for quarters, but was not successful at all (missing table know how). Yes, your idea is also a good solution. And you are right, quaters are generall irrelevant after some time. --GodeNehler (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Would reversing the years make it any easier to follow vertically? (ie put it in archeological order, with the older models down deeper and new models on top.) You could visualize it as the 80D "building on" the 70D, for example. (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I have done it. I have put the new layout to the active page. Let see for the feedback. Thank you Donan Raven. The idea of the IP address, reversing the table, could be a further improvement. I didn't implemented this idea, because it is lot of work. So if the IP address like to implement it, please give it a try. --GodeNehler (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I understand that it would be a lot of work -- that is why I only asked it as a question. I might have tried out some of my suggestions here, but I don't understand the WP table syntax. (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I assume that you refer to keeping the current year at the top: it would be a lot of work to create and just as much time to edit every time that a new camera is launched, so it would make no sense at all, plus it breaks *even more* with convention. Approval and feedback should be gathered on the current production template first. signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 02:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Teemome said that it was "hard to follow vertically". I agree (as does the other IP user who reverted it, per the next section). I simply asked if placing the latest year at the top would help. "Convention" usually puts time on the x-axis. "Convention" has values that increase up and to the right. My suggestion would break with one convention instead of two. What "makes sense" is usability, not difficulty with future edits. (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, here is now the reversed version. Is this better? --GodeNehler (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I envisioned. Thank you very much. For me, it is easier to understand it this way than the other vertical layout. (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Personally the vertical design is the problem, people don't read like that. The wiki design convention of timelines going from left to right makes a lot of sense after seeing a vertical timeline, it just doesn't work (talk) 03:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Vertical timeline looks bad: This template was fine as it is before, there wasn't a strong need to change it. The new design looks much worse from a design perspective, it inhibits readability and understanding just so you can stick the cameras on top of each other. (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
feedback as of March 2016: I think that an orientation change of the timeline has not reached consensus because it breaks with convention for wikipedia templates and because it is premature (as pointed out by the readership, the current timeline is readable and the quarter distinction is more readable than the proposal). In the future we can either:
  • split into separate templates with a 10 year cycle
  • split into separate templates with a 20 year cycle
  • keep working on a vertical timeline until it reaches consensus in the talk page before being committed into production. (In this case I would still recommend a top down chronology as per all timeline articles)
please comment in due course. Thank you for contributing. signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 17:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
One comment from my side (composer of this version of the table): It is really unusual the bottom up, so it take too much time to get in line with this. I would prefer top down, and than all in one table. BUT: I think we can live for the time being with the horizontal version, and if we get no consens on the vertical version – maybe split the horizontal version into separate templates. --GodeNehler (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
I think that getting rid of the other names (Rebel, Kiss) was a bad idea. How do I know when the Canon EOS Digital Rebel was launched? I need to look up in the search box for the camera and then look at the page. If I wanna know if the Rebel was newer than the XSi, I have to do two searches. About the page layout, I prefer the horizontal. It's more natural this way, IMO. On the "professional/enthusiast/upper entry/lower entry" categories, this is not only sales talk IMO, but even if it is, why get rid of this? And if you got rid of it, why the "Full frame" line is split in two "sections" (you have one for the 1D and other for the 5D + 6D)? --Cesarakg (talk) 15:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)