Template talk:Canon EOS digital cameras

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.
 

100D/SL1[edit]

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.--83.163.143.150 (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 88.88.187.75 (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. 64.134.26.145 (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. 64.134.26.145 (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. 64.134.26.145 (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) 108.114.0.48 (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. 184.209.8.44 (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. 184.209.3.151 (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. 108.114.5.191 (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. 184.209.5.81 (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 98.248.144.179 (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. 50.161.55.246 (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)

@ReaderCritic:@Skrapion:@Teemome:@GodeNehler: - proposing this diminutive template for practical purposes where the current one is too vertical. Please comment, edit in the talk page here before the template signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 14:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi donan.raven, for me the problem is more the horizontal size than the vertical one. I personally like also the have the quarter, when it is introduced, but don't need the separate vertical line. With the sample below, one of the biggest problem will be, which description to use: Europe one, US one or the Japanese one, as it is a Japanese company. If you put in all, the size increases again. On other hand: on my PC the Rebel T1 and T2 are not readable at my screen (apple mac book air 11"). What I don't like at the current version: Someone has introduced 'class' again. For me it's useless. By the way: what kind of screen / pc / mobile phone are you using that the vertical size matters? --GodeNehler (talk) 17:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
For reference, this is my preferred layout, but it's been edited recently by drive-by editors.
I initially put the Rebel and Kiss names back in because I was trying to compare models, and I found it pretty impossible to cross-reference my different sources of data without the American names present. Looking at the comments here, multiple people strongly preferred having the Rebel names here, and the only thing approaching support for removing them was @Donan.raven: asking for opinions on removing them. I could see an argument for leaving the Kiss names off of the table on the English Wikipedia, but like @GodeNehler:, I agree that there's plenty of vertical size. The only argument I can see for choosing the European names is that they look the most similar to the names of the other product lines, and I don't find that argument compelling.
I prefer the version without the quarters, because it makes Rebel T2i, 1DX Mk II, 5D Mk IV, and M5 more readable. I also don't think the quarters are particularly necessary for a timeline like this. This timeline is just supposed to let you know the order that the products came out, not the exact release date.
Finally, there's an argument over the order of the product lines. I view the 1Ds as a variant of the 1D, the 5Ds as a variant of the 5D, the x0Da as a variant of the x0D, and the 100D as a variant of the x00D, so the order that makes most sense to me is: 1D, 1Ds, 5D, 5Ds, 6D, 7D, x0D, x0Da, xx0D, 100D, xx00D, Mx, M10. This has the nice side-effect of keeping the "Full-frame" section together.
There's been one or two edits insisting that the 1D is the flagship line, so it should be first, but ironically these edits actually put the 1D line second, after the 1Ds/1DX. However, since the 1DX was expressly intended to replace both 1D/1Ds lines, maybe this would keep people happier?
Type Sensor 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Sensor
DSLR APS-H 1D 1D Mk II 1D Mk II N 1D Mk III 1D Mk IV 1DX / 1DC 1DX Mk II Full-frame
Full-frame 1Ds 1Ds Mk II 1Ds Mk III
That conveys more information than before, in that shows that the 1DX is a continuation of both the 1D and 1Ds lines, but it might be a little confusing, and it takes up a bit more horizontal space by adding the right-hand 'sensor' column.
Incidentally, if we needed to split this timeline into two, 2012 would probably be the ideal year to do it. A lot changed that year. They merged the 1D/1Ds lines, and they introduced DIGIC 5, the MILC lines, and the 6D. The 7D, 60D, and 1100D would appear in both the pre- and post-2012 timelines, but otherwise it would be pretty clean. --Skrapion (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Your example gave me first the Impression that the 1DX is supporting APS-H and Full Frame, which is not the case as far as I know. Later I have seen the Full frame marking on the right side. Formal it is correct, but I expect the table is hard to read, especially for someone who is not familiar with the theme. Changing the order to: 1D, 1Ds, 5D, 5Ds, 6D, 7D, x0D, x0Da, xx0D, 100D, xx00D, Mx, M10 would be OK for me.
Beside that, the accuracy of one year instead of one quarter: I would prefer the quarter accuracy, but can also live with the yearly accuracy.
As I am from Europe / Germany I would like to see the 3 and 4 digits name as they are more familiar to me, and it is also used in UK, so therefore at leaset REbell and numbers should be used.
Splitting at 2012 is not a bad idea. At least we get rid of the APS-H cameras in the new table. --)GodeNehler (talk 22:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The biggest problem is how people don't get the context of how Canon's camera lines developed, and the history behind the models. Some people just learn about the difference between the sizes in sensors, say "larger is better!" and then just rank everything based on sensor size. That's not how the Canon lineup worked. Let's jump back to, say, 2007. You had the 1D3 and 1Ds3 at $4500 and $8000, the 5D at $3000, the 40D, and some rebel camera on the bottom. The 1D/1Ds lineup was clearly superior to the 5D lineup, despite the smaller sensor on the 1D3; sensor size wasn't the biggest concern. If you tried in 2007 to set the order of this template in the order of 1Ds/5D/1D/40D then people will call you insane.
The order for Canon DSLRs, in real life, would be 1Ds, 1D, then the 5D, then the 6D and 7D depending on if you value a larger sensor or a more professional system, and then the x00D and x000D lines. (The 1Dx is a bit weird for a table, since it technically replaces the 1D line, not the 1Ds line, but it has a full frame sensor like the 1Ds cameras.) In order to keep the 1Dx at the top, the template was set to have the 1Dx replace the 1Ds3 in the same row, and putting the discontinued 1D4 row underneath it. This isn't optimal, since the sensor size on the left would go FF -> APS-H -> FF. However, keep in mind the template is supposed to be descriptive, not normative. The template is merely describing Canon's lineup, not setting up a framework that Canon uses. The reality is ugly and not sortable by sensor size, and in general, people would rank the APS-H 1D line higher than the FF 5D line.
Having the 1D cameras above the 1Ds is a questionable decision, since most people didn't view them as a tier above the 1Ds line; the 1Ds was usually considered better. The 1Ds cameras cost more, where the 1Ds3 was nearly double the price of the 1D3. You'd also have a weird situation where this template goes in the order of APS-H to FF to APS-C which seems to imply that FF is smaller than APS-H but larger than APS-C.
The most accurate way to order the table, then, is to follow the perception of the value of these cameras- this was how it was done in the past, and still makes the most sense. You'd get the 1Ds on top, 1D, 5D, 6D/7D, x0D, x00D, etc. The sensor size description isn't in order, but it's not that important- alternatively, you can even remove it and get a little bit more horizontal space. You can replace sensor size with what IS important for a list of Canon cameras- the mount size (whether it is EF or EF-S) which makes it clear that the 1D line of cameras is also EF mount, but it has its own issues where the EOS 10D is a APS-C camera with a EF (not EF-S) mount so I don't really recommend it.
In the end, the most descriptive way to do this chart is to keep the sensor size row and keep the current order, even if it's not great for people who are OCD and want the sensor size sorted by FF -> APS-H -> APS-C. Like I said, reality is messy and not sortable. Teemome (talk 01:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, but you're falling into the same "larger is better!" trap. The 1Ds was a specialty model of the 1D which had better resolution and a bigger sensor, but lower max ISO and worse continuous shooting. Yes, the 1Ds was more expensive, but the 20Da model was also more expensive than the 20D.
I think the best way to order them is to order them first by the value of the product line: 1D, 5D, 6D, 7D, xx0D, etc, then as a second order, the specialty s, C, and a lines. However, I think we can better show how the s, C, and a models are related to the product line as a whole.
I've been working on splitting the tables into pre- and post-2012, and it affords the ability to do all of this more consistently. I'll post in a second. --Skrapion (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Teemome: As promised, I've put together some new options:
The overarching design of these is that every series (1D, 5D, etc) gets a 2-high row, and all the variants are placed on the bottom half of row. See below for more details, as well as my comment above, in case you haven't seen that yet. --Skrapion (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
The overall changes into 2 split sections look good, although honestly it'd probably work better with the 20Da 60Da and 1DC split out into their own row. Keeping the Japanese names is also semi important, it's used for referencing cameras when buying gray market items since importing from Japan (for americans and europeans) is cheaper than direct purchasing as a consumer. Either go with only the international names (x000D, x00D etc) or all the names. Also the cameras should still be ordered 1Ds -> 1D -> 5D -> ... for the same reason the 5Ds is placed on top of the 5D3. You'd probably also want to add the "..." symbol to the 7D and 60D rows to make it clear that they extend across both timelines. Mobile view also looks worse, but i cant put my finger on why right now Teemome (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@Teemome:
  • I agree with the … symbol. I think that makes sense. And I should probably add them to the pre-2012 template as well.
  • I'm not opposed to putting the Kiss names back in. I have a couple ideas on how best to do that. Can we put a pin in it for now?
  • I like the consistency of saying "The 1Ds was derived from the 1D, so it goes in the 1D row, similarly, the 20Da was derived from the 20D, and the 1DC was derived from the 1DX". (For this reason, I kind of prefer the layout in this version, where it more strongly implies that the 1Ds was derived from the 1D. However, it sounds like @GodeNehler: weakly opposes the footnote solution.) I've been thinking of putting stronger borders between the 1D/5D/6D/etc rows to make this organization more clear.
  • Regarding the Da, there's this option, which still implies that the 20Da was derived from the 20D, but also maintains it as a separate line. I think @Donan.raven: prefers this version.
  • Regarding the 1DC... It's an interesting argument to have. Here a Canon exec claims that the 1DX Mk II replaces the 1DC, but I found a source (unfortunately, it was just an online forum) with an email "from very very high up Canon Professional Services chain" claiming that they do not consider the 1DX Mk II to be a successor to the 1DC, and logically that makes sense, since the 1DX Mk II has the 30minute limit again. Then again, Canon's brand management isn't always logical. The 1DX was a step down from the 1Ds in terms of resolution, and that didn't stop Canon from releasing a press release saying the 1DX replaced the 1Ds.
Now, let's talk about the order of 1D and 1Ds. Subjectively, I agree with you that the latest 1Ds was usually better than the latest 1D. But there's argument's otherwise:
  • The 1D series was faster, both in terms of continuous shooting and ISO speed.
  • The 1D series always got updated first, so, for much of the time, the latest 1D had better AF, processing, and LCD screens than the latest 1Ds. (If resolution was of secondary concern to you, then the 1D was ahead of the 1Ds in 17 quarters.)
So, I think it's subjective. But let's look at a couple other derivatives:
  • The 1DC is objectively better than the 1DX. It's the same camera, except it has extra heat sinking in order to process 4K video, it has an additional gamma mode, it has a headphone jack, and it has unlimited recording time. There's no way anybody could argue that the 1DX is better than the 1DC. And of course, it's more expensive. Does that mean we should put the 1DC above the 1DX?
  • The 5Ds still has higher resolution than the 1DX Mk II. Should it share the same line as the 1Ds at the top? And if it's below the 1D but above the 5D Mk III, does it go above or below the 5D Mk IV? (And again, subjectivity abound. The 5D Mks III and IV have better low-light performance, faster continuous shooting, and a headphone jack. Subjectively, I'd say they're the better camera for most people.)
I feel like madness lies that way. I believe it's far more objective to treat all the derivations the same way, regardless of perceived value. --Skrapion (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
For your consideration, I've created two new timelines: Template:Canon EOS digital cameras, pre-2012 and Template:Canon EOS digital cameras, post-2012. Here's the details:
  • I've put the quarters back in, but without numbering them. This is consistent with the Template:Canon EOS film cameras timeline.
  • I've removed the Kiss names, leaving only the names used in English-speaking territories. I've also put the 'Rebel' names in parentheses to indicate that they're the same thing.
  • I've properly named the first three Rebels with the "Digital Rebel" name, now that the tables aren't starved for space.
  • I've made all the product lines (1D, 5D, 6D, 7D, etc) a consistent height. Specialty models (a, C, and s) share the same line as their parent product line.
Cheers, --Skrapion (talk) 02:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I've created another option that keeps all the years together. This version just gets rid of the 'APS-H' line and specifies the difference with a footnote instead. It's nice seeing the whole thing together, but it sure is pushing the limits of the horizontal space. --Skrapion (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Skrapion:. Whow... that was my first impression if I saw the new tables... dramatic changes (most likely from the color impression). Really big and good changes. I expect we can go with them for a little bit longer time. Maybe we should put the older one hidden in and the new one open (minor thing). Or what do you think? I would personally remove the brackets. Rebell XXX is also a official name and should run on the same level as the 3 and 4 digit one. I have noticed also the nice quarter information at the top.
Regarding the second one, I expect this is not a solution for the long run. The solution for the XXDa is nice. For the 1Dxx I prefer the solution from the split tables. Good work-thank you. --GodeNehler (talk) 07:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Great contributions, some notes regarding User:Skrapion/Canon_EOS_digital_cameras, where I am not yet convinced by the split lines
  • the 1Ds was not replaced by the 1DC; If anything, it was equalled (and phased out in favour of the 5DMkII) - only topped by the 5Ds (see proposal adjustments below, where the that Skrapion introduced is retained to emphasize high resolution Vs high speed designations, without scrambling 1D/5D "number" lineup at any point in the timeline)
  • I would keep the astrocameras on a distinct line as they have no replacement sensor-wise
  • Omitting the quarter numbers is a better solution if quarters are retained, but I noticed some changes; How did Skrapion review/correct the camera production cycles?
signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 08:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@GodeNehler: Yes, I think we're on the same page regarding hiding the pre-2012 template. On the Canon EOS page, the post-2012 template would be visible, and the pre-2012 would be hidden by default, just like the film template. On individual model pages, you'd only include the template for the appropriate era; for instance, the 550D page would include the pre-2012 template.
As far as putting the Rebel names in parentheses, the biggest benefit is that it works whether the two names are in separate lines, or in the same line. See the 750D/760D.
@Donan.raven: I've made a change in both the Template:Canon EOS digital cameras, post-2012 and the User:Skrapion/Canon_EOS_digital_cameras pages regarding the 1DC. Contrary to what the current template indicates, the 1DC wasn't actually released until a year after the 1DX. This should solve the problem you have with the implication that the 1DC replaced the 1Ds Mk III. According to Canon literature, the 1DX replaces both the 1Ds Mk III and the 1D Mk IV, and the 1DC was later released as a variant of the 1DX. This shows that evolution nicely.
I've also created another version here that shows the "gap" in the astrophotography line. I'm not as partial to this version — my original idea was that the bottom half of each row shows the variants, rather than slavishly implying any sort of replacement — but I can see the appeal.
As far as changes in the quarters, can you point me to something that's changed? Maybe I'm blind, but everything on my new templates seems to be identical to the latest version of this template. (Except for the 1DC, of course.)
Finally, regarding your latest change, I certainly think it's unusual to suggest that the 5Ds is a continuation of the 1Ds line. In almost every way, the 5Ds is to the 5D series as the 1Ds was to the 1D series: the 5Ds is in basically the same body as the other 5D models, but it has a better sensor, and it's slower. So if the 1Ds is under the 1D, the 5Ds should be under the 5D. --Skrapion (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Skrapion: I deleted the comment regarding quarter production cycles because I realised that it was just an impression on my part. I now read your proposal User:Skrapion/Canon_EOS_digital_cameras as same-height "blocks" for each "outershell" (1D,5D,6D,7D,X0D;XX0D, etc), with all derivations enclosed therein, whereas my proposal below proposed to save vertical space and re-arrange according to functionality (Canon's focus for high resolution cameras has migrated from the 1D body to the smaller 5D). It is good to have the split decade alternative too, which will be soon needed anyway. These are all very good, and now contributors should comment preference in order to establish consensus and stick to the voted changes. In the current template I prefer to remove the Class column anyway, it is unencyclopedic. signed:Donan Raven (talk, contribs) 12:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

New Table Layout, Voting[edit]

I'm going to go ahead and update the table with the split decades, which everybody seemed to be supportive of. I made some more changes:

  • The timeline now consistently has preceding models on the left and succeeding models on the right. For instance, the 1Ds has the 1D to the left, and the 1DX has both the 1D Mk IV and the IDs Mk III on the left. As a side-effect, I had to get rid of the APS-H row heading.
  • I added double borders between each parent product line (1D, 5D, etc) to better differentiate them.
  • Since I got rid of the APS-H heading, I also went ahead and changed the split point to 2010 instead of 2012, since splitting on the decade seems more logical.

For all the things that I think we might disagree on, I'm going to put subsections here that we can vote on. --Skrapion (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Positioning of specialty models relative to parent models[edit]

There's four specialty lines:

  • 1Ds: Better resolution, worse shooting speed, worse ISO, more expensive.
  • 1DC: Better vdideo, more expensive.
  • 5Ds: Better resolution, worse shooting speed, worse ISO, worse video, more expensive.
  • Astrophotography: Different IR filter, more expensive.

There's been some suggestion that the high-resolution models should be placed above the models they're derived from, rather than below.

All specialty models below the parent models. I believe it's entirely subjective to put the high resolution models above their parent models, and not the other specialty models. The only objective solution is to put them all below the parent models. Canon has also referred to the 1D Mk III and the 1D Mk IV as flagship models, so it seems weird to put them on the second tier. --Skrapion (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Invalid question I object to the question, since the 1Ds is not a subset model of the 1D anyways. Canon has never positioned it as such, and this would be rewriting history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teemome (talkcontribs) 18:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

European/Rebel/Kiss names[edit]

Should the timeline include just the European names, the American names, or the Japanese names?

European+American or European+American+Japanese. I don't mind leaving out the Japanese names, since this is an English-speaking wiki, but the names from both of the English territories are necessary. --Skrapion (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
'I' or "I+A+J' Either only the International name, or everything. Don't pick and choose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teemome (talkcontribs) 18:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

APS-H header[edit]

Instead of splitting the timeline at 2010, we could split at 2012 and include an APS-H header for the 1D line.

Disagree. This layout loses the L-shape of the 1D cell, and therefore loses the relationship of the 1Ds as a derivative of the 1D.
Agree The new Canon series came out in 2012, and it's not exactly correct to say that the 1Ds is a subset of the 1D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teemome (talkcontribs) 18:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

1D C successor[edit]

Canon has announced that the 1D X Mk II replaces the 1D X and the 1D C. However, the 1D X Mk II doesn't have unlimited recording or log gamma, and the 1D C is still being produced. The current layout is meant to indicate that the 1D X Mk II is a partial successor to the 1D C. Should we keep this layout, list the 1D X Mk II as the only successor, or list no successor?

Keep or 1D X Mk II. I suspect one day we'll see a 1D C Mk II, but for now the only reliable source I can find from a Canon rep is that the 1D X Mk II is a replacement for the 1D C. --Skrapion (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Revert This is hideous... most of the cameras have been removed, yet it's even larger than before. This template is shown on each camera article to show it in the context of the others - the historical perspective is now gone. You say "everybody seemed to be supportive of" -- it's been suggested before, but never agreed to. (Please un-bold your Keep: wikipedia policy does not permit voting on your own proposal.) Other issues: The astro-line discontinued looks silly now that the 20Da is not shown. Combining the 1D, 1Ds, and 1DX into one parent/specialty model line is original research (and IMO *very* confusing). Relegating APS-H to a footnote makes no sense given the importance of the 1D line (Canon's flagship, as you acknowledge). 173.133.190.225 (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Apologies: regarding the 'supportive' comment, I was not aware of last week's additions to the previous section here. 173.133.190.225 (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This new format looks horrible[edit]

Who the hell thought it was a good idea to split at 2010? Why is the APS-H 1D labeled as Full frame with only a tiny footnote? Why does the 5Ds show as a partial successor to the 5D3 (it's not, it's a separate line)? Why are people who aren't familiar with Canon's lineup coming in and swapping the 1Ds and 1D when it's been like that for literally over a decade? Why is there an ugly "discontinued" line after the 20Da and not the 60Da, instead of the older format which was obvious to anyone who looked at it?

This is literally the worst case of "design by committee" i've seen. And it STILL doesn't fit on the smallest screens, which was the point of this redesign in the first place. Gyhchang (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, why is the 60Da row thicker than the "Astrophotography discontinued" row? Why is the 1Dc under the 1Dx? Why is the 1Dc row thicker than the 1Dx row when they are together? ... I literally see more and more problems as I look at it. Gyhchang (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree... but revert to which version? I like the way he put the quarters back in, but dislike everything else. 108.114.228.78 (talk) 20:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Any of about half the pre-split edits have quarters, I think.
At any rate, I agree with most of the criticisms. Too much is attempted to be done here, and you have a mess. There's no reason for half of the changes, like putting the 1DC under the 1DX line, the 5DS under the 5D line, etc. It's also harder to read, especially with the split at 2010... which is one of the worst years to split at. The obvious answer would be 2012 for the new full frame sensors, and possibly 2009 if you want to split when the 18mp APS-C sensor came out. Much of the design decisions that went into this is bizzare. Teemome (talk) 03:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

750D/760D, and now 800D/77D[edit]

I suggest that the 760D and the new 77D deserve a line of their own in the table, between the 70D/80D line and the 750D/800D line.

When Canon brought out the 750D and 760D, it was easy to see the 760D as a sort of variant of the 750D. But now the announcement of the 800D (replacing the 750D) and the 77D (replacing the 760D) indicates that this is actually intended by Canon to be a new intermediate product line. Stewart Robertson (talk) 09:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Also 760D has top plate LCD, like the professional ones. 750d has no such.