Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Canon EOS 400D.jpg

Canon EOS 400D[edit]

Reason: very good illustration of Canon EOS 400D
Articles this image appears in: Canon EOS 400D, Lens mount, Canon EF-S lens mount
Creator: Der Wolf im Wald

Support as nominator --Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It was some time ago, but I know of a wiki article of a mobile phone featuring some firsts that was deleted, because Wikipedia is not a catalogue. Is the article encyclopaedic enough for the wiki? Snowman (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have an article on the camera, and that article needs to be illustrated. Unless you are challenging the existence of the article, this is something that should be illustrated, and is perfectly valid as a featured picture if the quality is high enough. J Milburn (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see that as out of question. It could be argued that all Canon EOS or a certain range of it should be merged into one article. Elekhh (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is partly a question of interpreting WP:NOTDIRECTORY and other things that the wiki is not. I think these guidelines on manufactured products have been modified to be more relaxed. It is also partly a question of how to best present information by merging articles or splitting articles, and I wonder if a series or range of cameras could all be merged in one article without losing any information. I doubt if there are grounds to delete the article in the absence a good comprehensive article on the camera series. Actually, I would not wish to see any information on this camera removed from the wiki. Snowman (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, regardless of what the policies say about what Wiki is or isn't, as long as the article exists, (per J Milburn) the image does a good job of illustrating the subject and belongs there. It seems a bit counterproductive to merge the articles when the features and history of each camera is independent. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 21:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In-the-round I agree with you that the article needs an illustration. I think that the article should not be deleted under the more relaxed rules of WP:NOT on manufactured products. Snowman (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I don't think this sort of image would be deleted. It's perfectly encyclopaedic. It shows the camera clearly, although it would be ideal to show it from different angles like we've done with many fruits and vegetables (I don't recommend it be sliced in half though!). Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Agreeing with J Milburn. Durova³⁷¹ 19:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't find it "among Wikipedia's best work" or that "it illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more" as per FPC. The frontal view only shows one of three interesting sides of the camera. Elekhh (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Smudgy and blurry. The surface of the camera has a texture, but it looks like it's been destroyed in editing. Thegreenj 23:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no texture, the surface of the camera simply consist of clean plastic. -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 05:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this comparable image would support your assertion. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 14:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a nice quartet of images linked above, and is consistent with my idea of having more than one view on commons. The wiki could have six images (other versions) in a gallery including a view from the top and a view from the bottom as well. Snowman (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the grips in this photo and the ones you linked to. Also, look at the lens mount, the black screws above the lens mount, and the flash covering. There's weird artifacts all over the place. Looks like bad NR to me; the blotchy surface reminds me of a median filter or something similar. Thegreenj 02:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the back, and the effect is even more apparent, presumably since that photo has not been downsampled. However, given the ISO 200, noise shouldn't be a problem, so I'm not sure what's causing it. It definitely looks like a low-radius median filter followed by sharpening, though. Thegreenj 02:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The surface of my 400D has been polished glossy from lots of use in many areas. This camera seems to have the same thing (to a much lesser extent). I wonder if this is what you are noticing. The flash on this one still opens, heh. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's definitely a digital artifact, not something to do with the actual camera. In any case, it seems not to be an issue for anyone else here. Thegreenj 01:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support; I like the picture as an uncomplicated illustration, which is what the article needs. I wonder if a view from the top, one from each side, an oblique view, and perhaps one with a typical lens could also be made available on commons and linked to this file in the image description as "other versions". Are any companion images available? - I think they could enhance the value of this image. Snowman (talk) 12:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a comparable image of the cameras back (see here) -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 13:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of technical drawing (needing three views), but I should add for completion that an image from below would be beneficial too. Snowman (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm in the market for a new camera, and this image did compel me to read the article. Plus, it meets the technical criteria. Sasata (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why was the resolution signifigantly lowered during the color edits you made? From 2,799×2,584 to 1,600×1,477 is about a 67% decrease in resolution... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 06:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support The resolution seems to be high enough. -- Nicolas17 de (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Sorry, but the technical quality of this photograph is low, especially on the surfaces with contrast where you can see it most (like the "EOS" text). The photograph is blurry and has very low depth of field. A better effort can be done considering this image is static and doesn't need too much setting up compared to animal images or landscape images. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Canon EOS 400D.jpg --Caspian blue 04:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]