Template talk:Canon EOS digital cameras/Archive 2

Let's finally resolve the 5D professional categorization

Okay, I emailed Chuck Westfall, and he confirmed that the current Canon lineup includes 3 Professional EOS camera bodies: the 1D C, the 1D X, and the 5D III. Now, I have the official word from Canon's Technical Information Advisor in an email. Can we finally make this change to this table and be done with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.174.85 (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That's great that you contacted him, but I don't think Wikipedia uses personal email as a source. Is this just about semantics? If the category wasn't called "Professional", would there still be an issue? It was changed to "Flagship" recently, which seems apt. Anterras (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

First, I like what you did with the M body. Excellent work. Second, yes, it's semantics. If you're curious why, it's because I'm an attorney: this is what we build our professional careers on and these kind of things are important to us. I think it's fine if email isn't an official source for this. Principally because I don't see any evidence that official sources were used for any of the categories prior to now - what matters is that it's accurate. More compelling, I am actually sourcing on this stuff, and I believe it is being sourced for the first time. Canon Australia does indicate the 5D is a professional body, so even if email is not sufficient, we have the following link which actually specifically does the work of categorizing these bodies for us:

http://www.canon.com.au/professional/eos-digital-slr-cameras/eos-5d-mark-iii

I just want the categories to most accurately reflect literature as much as possible. I am working on finding the correct label for the other categories and am changing them upon discovery. When I added the new Enthusiast category, I made sure it was accurate to the Canon literature and press releases I found. I don't like Advanced, Mid-Level, or Entry-Level either, so we must work to fix those. You make a good point about the category concept of a Flagship. Let me share my thoughts on the Flagship category: I actually thought about keeping the Flagship category for a single camera body, because that word is, in fact, used occasionally. But as I thought about it more, I realized that Professional was equally effective at indicating the top level cameras, only it has the additional benefit of having information conveying power on a utility level and is also inclusive of more than a single camera body. And the point of categorizing these things is to help a reader understand how these bodies are marketed for use. To convey the sense of the 1D X being a Flagship product, I will modify the 1D X page to indicate the element of being a Flagship camera body now. I do hope that satisfies the concern of not including the conveyance of which camera in the lineup is the Flagship camera body.

So here I will summarize all of the above in an argument. Let's assume one of 3 possibilities: 1. the 5D series is grouped with the 1D series, 2. the 5D series is grouped with the 6D series and the 7D series, OR 3. the 5D series, the 1D series, the 6D series, and the 7D series are grouped together. To be most consistent, we should choose the third option, because that follows the paradigm of xD, xxD, xxxD, and xxxxD to define categorization. But since we're choosing to make an exception with separating the 1D series from the other xD bodies, we should try to be as accurate as possible with market segmentation. Hence the choice of Professional over Flagship for the separate category. If Professional for the separate category, then the 5D should be included in that categorization, given the evidence presented, and the first option should be chosen rather than the second option.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.174.85 (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Definitely, official published sources should be the baseline for this table. In the link you provided, "Professional" is used to describe the section of the website, not to describe the cameras specifically. There is a full categorization of the cameras, however, on this page of the same site. So following Canon's organization, there are three categories of DSLRs. If we then place the xD - xxxxD paradigm on top, that segments it further into five categories. Anterras (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Great work! Let's follow the categorization provided on the link you found: Professional, Enthusiast, and Entry Level. Even though Chuck said differently, I'm happy with what you found. It appears we have been going down the wrong road with the xD, xxD, etc. paradigm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.174.85 (talk) 23:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Well no, the xD - xxxxD paradigm is clearly accurate, but I won't argue the point. Anterras (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you that the descending order classification is also accurate, but we finally found the correct categorization labels for the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.174.85 (talk) 00:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

How Canon SLR Cameras are numbered

Canon uses a system of numbering their camera bodies in a descending order, from best down. So the best body is the one 1 series, the hypothetical second best would be the 2 series (doesn't exist), etc. So the categorization of any of these camera bodies needs to bear that in mind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B126:BFDB:6366:EBE4:9D1A:B6DF (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not a rigid descending order. That would mean that the 60D is a better body than the 70D, which is clearly not the case. What is true, however, is the descending order of magnitude: xD > xxD > xxxD > xxxxD. Currently, it doesn't make sense for the 7D and 70D to be in separate categories, while the 700D and 1200D are in the same. Anterras (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Really good point. We should categorize all this based on magnitude when the protection lock goes off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.174.85 (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I would leave everything as it is, and just separate the xxxD and xxxxD groups. Anterras (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay I'll do that. I found a canon press release that indicated the 60D is a body designed for the enthusiast segment. So I plugged that in and kept the other categories as they were. This is looking more accurate now, even though I don't know how the M and M2 should fit in. I don't want to remove them so I'll just leave those be. Good suggestion man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.174.85 (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The M series should probably be separated as well. Also, it looks like you didn't actually keep the other categories as they were, since you changed the lineup of the top one. Anterras (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I am fine with it for now. Technically, the 5D is a professional level body, but I'll take up on that later. Good job otherwise on your descending magnitude suggestion. Now... About the M series. Hmmmmm. . Maybe we can put the M series down in the bottom somewhere under the "early models" for "mirrorless. I don't know where else to put it. It's kind of a new segment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.174.85 (talk) 11:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Someday the M series may warrant their own table entirely, but I would put them in a separate row between Entry and Early. Anterras (talk) 20:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Go for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.174.85 (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

5D in professional category

Hey guys. I am making a tweak to the table. I will put the 5D series up in the professional category since that seems to be the prevailing press by Canon marketing (1D X and 5D III are the two professional cameras.) Anyway what do you guys all think? I saw someone added 'flagship category, which also makes sense, but I think it's getting to differential. We're 2 cameras away from just having a separate category for every body if we do that. Oh, and I linked this table together with the film SLR table at the bottom.

Anyway, what does everyone think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.174.85 (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

No, no, and no. The 5D is NOT more professional than the 1D series of cameras. The 1D line is DEFINED as the most professional high speed offerings.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/professional/professional_cameras/eos_digital_slr_cameras/eos_1d_mark_iv (seriously, look at how many times the word "professional" shows up in that URL, while the 5D line URL is all consumer http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/support/consumer/eos_slr_camera_systems/eos_digital_slr_cameras/eos_5d_mark_ii)

and the 1DX is considered the combination of both the 1D and the 1Ds lines. Also, sensor size larger does not mean it's better. Yes, professional cameras usually have larger sensors, but that's not a "rule". If you look at the "How Canon SLR Cameras are numbered" section, you can see that Canon orders their products in a descending numerical order. There is no reason for the 5D line to be above the 1D line, and this has been true for this page since it was created in 2006. You make a post on the talk page FIRST, BEFORE you change something that's correct and has been like that for 8 years. Not to mention the last time someone tried to put the 5D above the 1D line (in 2008, if you had bothered to scroll down a bit on this talk page, you would see it), it was immediately shot down. Also, it was brought up that the 5D was for "serious consumers and professionals", which arguably makes it a prosumer camera, or at least inarguably lower rated than the 1D line, at minimum. Reverted. Jcitme (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Upon review, especially noting how Canon actually puts the 1D and 1Ds (and 1DX) into the "professional" section of their website, while the 5D cameras are in the "consumer" section of their website, it is probably best to revert the 5D from the "professional" section back into the "advanced" section, like it was a few weeks ago. On a side note, personally, I don't care which order 7D and 6D are in (the 6D has a smaller model number and a better sensor, but the 7D is definitely more aimed at professionals who actually make a living shooting sports/etc, while the 6D is a "consumer full frame" in Canon marketing). Perhaps someone else can weigh in on that. Jcitme (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Jcitmel, I think if you read prior discussions here on this talk page, you would see that this has already been discussed. But if you want to read a URL and use that to determine whether something is professional or not, here you go:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/digital_slr_cameras/eos_5d_mark_iii

And at Canon Australia, they even have a little bar across the top that shows you what the "professional" camera bodies are (1DX, 1DsIII, 1DIV, and 5D3 as well as the 5D2):

http://www.canon.com.au/professional/eos-digital-slr-cameras/eos-5d-mark-iii

And finally, if you want some examples of what people are writing about regarding this camera, you can count how many times the word 'professional' appears here in some writers' opinions:

http://mashable.com/2012/03/02/canon-eos-5d-mkiii/

http://digital-cameras.toptenreviews.com/professional-dslr/canon/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii-review.html

http://theartofphotography.tv/canon/5d-mark-iii/

Not sure why the URL root structure means anything but there you have it, along with content. Literature and brochures, also, do identify the 5D series as professional, which is a bit more definitive than a URL hierarchy or reviewer statement. And just read the top bar of the Australian Canon website to see the 1DX, 1DsIII, 1DIV, and 5D3 as well as the 5D2 listed as the professional bodies.

As to the 5D ranking higher than the 1D, I don't know how you got that. They were all ranked equally in the Professional row, with the 5D in the full frame row and the 1D in the APS-H row. Neither was higher than the other. All were equal professional bodies.

AND ON ANOTHER MATTER, your revision was sloppy and you erased the addition of the link to the EOS film camera table I put on here for completeness.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.174.85 (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If you had bothered to look up how to read a talk page, you would have noticed that 1) you should have indented that block for readability, and 2) the last time somebody edited the 5D line above the 1D line, it was immediately rejected by the community, because the 5D line is NOT more professional than the 1D line. The 5D is a consumer/professional product, whereas the 1D is a professional only product. This was discussed last time as well. Also, Full frame doesn't mean that it's worse than APS-H, and stop editing the page as such. Lastly, there is no reason to link to the Canon film cameras, it's not like the nikon template over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Nikon_DSLR_cameras have a link either. You are not trying to make this page better, your agenda is to place the 5D above the 1D, which makes no sense to anyone who has actually worked in the industry and knows how these work. If you randomly changing elements of the page, I'll request for the page to be semi-protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcitme (talk • contribs) 21:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not putting the 5D series ABOVE or saying it is MORE professional than the 1D series. Are you not able to look at rows and differentiate between AMONG and ABOVE? The 5D is AMONG the 1D series bodies, ranked EQUALLY with it in terms of who it was designed for. One is best in class at movement photographs, one is best in class at non-movement photographs now that the current line up is the 1D X and 5D III. Both are professional level tools. When in this trail of edits has anyone suggested 5D had more features or whatever than the 1D line? Nowhere... You're totally confusing yourself and anyone reading this. You didn't even look at the Australian Canon website link I posted above did you? Look at it! It is clear and unambiguous!! I'll summarize it again for you: the 1DX, 1DsIII, 1DIV, 5D3, and the 5D2 are all listed as the professional bodies that Canon makes. Simple and clear and from the company that makes the products! Of course if you read other publications from Canon, you'd see these bodies categorized together everywhere, not just from Canon Australia.

And I don't know what you meant by full frame being worse than APS-H. Anyhow, maybe someone should add a link to the Nikon film cameras from the Nikon digital camera page too... Does whether Nikon's DSLR page has a link to the Nikon Film SLRs matter? No. I thought the whole point of all this was to educate people and make information more accessible and easier to find. I have made it easier for someone to find information to compare older film bodies to the new digital bodies in the EOS family camera system when somebody may never have known a complementary table of film camera bodies even existed. Maybe that means they both should be cross linked on Nikon's pages too and nobody has done it yet.

You were again sloppy in your edit because under the Advanced row, you have "FULL FRAME" listed twice and if you would have been clean about this, you would have grouped them together like everything else is (I don't see 6 APS-C rows for every separate APS-C body in the 'entry-level' and 'mid-range' rows of this table.)

Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.174.85 (talk) 13:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Professional/prosumer/consumer labels

What is the source for the professional, prosumer, and consumer labels? It seems they are highly contentious (the 5D was just put above the 1D and relabeled as professionsl) and don't seem to be labels put forth by Canon. Cburnett (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't really have a solution. I think the vast consensus among the general populace is that the 1d is a "professional" body and the 5d is a "prosumer" body, even if those definitions are not official or even accurate. However, I can't really think of any more descriptive terms, except maybe "high-end", "low-end", "entry-level", "midrange", etc. Tejastheory (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

If they can't be sourced then WP:V says they should be deleted. I don't know that labels are necessary. Cburnett (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Then how is the table going to be organized? You have three different lines of APS-C sized cameras, so you need something to differentiate them. Tejastheory (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted them until someone can devise a way or cite sources classifying them. Cburnett (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You've just made the template worthless. How is anyone supposed to get information from captions that read "Full frame, APS-H, Full frame, ASP-C, Astrophotgraphy, APS-C"? The following press releases from Canon name the camera models as targeted towards "professionals" and "semi-professionals", so I'm going to put them back. If you really want a press release source for every single camera I'm sure those can be found as well.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082010canoneos40d.asp

"Canon today introduces its latest digital SLR for advanced amateurs and semi-professionals: the EOS 40D."

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082009canoneos1dsmarkiii.asp

"Canon raises the stakes in the professional photography market with the launch of the 21 Megapixel, 5 frame per second EOS-1Ds Mark III."

And you could at least add in Template:Fact next time. Tejastheory (talk) 00:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Does dpreview.com speak on behalf of Canon or other manufacturers? Cburnett (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[Tired of indenting.]

If the highly contentious labels cannot be sourced to reliable, authoritative sources then they don't belong. Cburnett (talk) 00:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess you didn't bothered to read the actual links. Those quotes come from the official Canon press release. Tejastheory (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Touche, now you can add a source for every camera. Until then the labels are gone. Cburnett (talk) 00:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You're being detrimental to the purpose of wikipedia. You know the information is there, and now you're just trying to be an annoying roadblock in the process. It's the prudish people like you that just make more work for everyone else to make pages better.

1ds series, professional: mentioned above 1d series, professional: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0702/07022208canoneos1dmarkiii.asp 5D series, professional: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.asp x0d series, semi-pro mentioned above 20Da series, astrophotography: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060101canon20da.asp Rebel series, consumer: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082416canoneos400drebelxti.asp

Tejastheory (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No. The labels are contentious and no one agrees. I'm following policy and in this case it is clearly needed. If you don't like policy then get it changed. Since you are the restorer of questioned material then per policy it is your job, not mine, to add citations. Cburnett (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, I think I'd be fine with making a section in Canon EOS or something where the whole professional/prosumer/consumer deal is hashed out and sourced. That section could be linked from the template. Canon EOS#Model naming scheme is entirely uncited but a starting point. Cburnett (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to see if can find Canon sources for the categories. Here Canon states that the 5D is intended for "serious enthusiasts and professionals", basically the definition of prosumer. Thegreenj 21:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I've changed the links to Canon press releases, which either state explicitly the camera's intended audience or, in the case of the 5D, imply it. Thegreenj 21:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been thinking about these labels for quite some time now after Canon released another product line (7D) to their system. I've been comparing this and other templates, Template:Canon EOS film cameras and Template:Nikon DSLR cameras, where two different kinds of labeling schemes are used.

Currently, the Canon DSLR template need five labels, and are a mix of the other two. Should this be based around the Nikon labeling scheme (Flagship, High-end, Mid-range, Entry-level; lacks one label) or the Canon EOS film scheme (Professional, Prosumer, Advanced amateur, Consumer, Entry level)?

The lack of one more label from the Nikon scheme could be solved using another logical name such as Low-end placed onto the xxxD series and the term Mid-range be bumped up to the xxD series (which is really in the middle already after the 7D was released). IMO, it's logical in the sense that the term High-end is not really at the top-end (where Flagship is) and Low-end is not really at the bottom-end (where Entry level is). Therefore, it will be: Flagship, High-end, Mid-range, Low-end, and Entry-level.

Otherwise, we could just adopt the already established Canon EOS film cameras template's labeling scheme.

Kakero (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not happy with the present table classification. Canon clearly classifieds 5D line as professional, example here: http://www.brochures.canon-europe.com/getFile.php?productid=8484&languageid=1. Looking on Nikon table, its clear classification, but Canon one is a nonsense. "High-end" versus "Professional" - that it's completely different things. Is somebody working for Nikon here, fighting to classify 5D series as only "High-end" so that more Nikons can be classified as professional in comparison to Canon? Nikon's Professional flagship and professional compact is great and easy to use, why can this table be same? We should unify tables so users can easily compare and recognize categories across different brands.

Crazy1boy (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.54.69 (talk)

I think that "Professional compact" is potentially misleading. If there is such a thing in the Canon line-up, it would be the Powershot G-series. Sure, the 5D (and 7D) series are smaller than the 1-series, and I think few are disputing that the 5D II (and III) are professional-level cameras. However, I think the term "High-end" is less contentious - and a term used in Canon's PR material for the original 5D. Note that the 5D was never marketed as a professional camera. From the Canon 5D white paper:

“ At an estimated selling price of $3,2991, the Canon EOS 5D Digital SLR has actually

invented a new category: the mid-price, high-end DSLR or, as Canon prefers to say, the first Premium DSLR camera.

”

Regards, decltype (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I also don't see consensus on the Nikon talk page for the current version of the Nikon template (which looks rather silly to me). Loads of amateurs use DX00 cameras, just like the 7D (and even X0D) are used by amateurs and professionals alike. There is no clear distinction. The 40D and 50D qualify for Canon Professional Services membership, does that mean they are "professional" camera bodies? decltype (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You may find it silly but that is your POV. There is no need for consensus on the Nikon talk page because the classification is per Nikon Europe, a primary source. --Jovian Eye _storm 23:13, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because there is a source, does not mean the wording is exempt from consensus - and the issue has been widely discussed in the past. decltype (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

We finally solved this... 2 years later. See the conversation above on where the 5D should fall once and for all. We found a reference by Canon.

1DX quarter

The timeline suggests the 1DX was out in Q1 of 2012. It will not be out until March according to the press release so it seems to me that Q2 2012 should be used as the actual release quarter. Am I missing something? Jason Quinn (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

And to add to that, the 5D3 should be available at the end of March, isn't that Q2 as well? -- Sander (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think Q1 runs until March 31, and Q2 runs from April 1. If the 5D3 is on sale in March, that's (late) Q1, but the exact launch date hasn't been announced yet. WikiWikiPhil (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

1DX is due in June 2012[[1]] --Racklever (talk) 21:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

650D/Rebel T4i processor

I noticed that my change to the template regarding the processor on the Canon EOS 650D, or as it's called in my part of the world, the Rebel T4i, was reverted. DIGIC 5 and DIGIC 5+ are not the same. According to the official Canon U.S.A. press release (emphasis added):

The new EOS Rebel T4i features incredible image quality with an 18-megapixel CMOS (APS-C) sensor, DIGIC 5 Image Processor that helps capture all the action with high-speed continuous shooting of up to five frames per second (fps) and an extended ISO range of 100-12800 (expandable to 25600 in H mode) that gives photographers the opportunities to take the EOS Rebel T4i into more shooting situations than ever before.

Note that the 5D Mark III indeed has DIGIC 5+. From the Canon U.S.A. press release:

Positioned between the extremely popular EOS 5D Mark II and Canon's top-of-the-line professional EOS-1D X model, the EOS 5D Mark III delivers superb image quality, thanks to a new 22.3-megapixel full-frame Canon CMOS sensor, a high-performance DIGIC 5+ Imaging Processor, a 61-point High Density Reticular Autofocus (AF) System and six frames-per-second (fps) continuous shooting speed.

Just wanted to let everyone in on this. — Dale Arnett (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The LOOK

Maybe I'm too picky but IMHO this table looks TERRIBLE. Whoever expanded the last columns was right. But collapsing all previous years in a two inch mess was WRONG. Could someone make it look like a timeline table in Wikipedia instead of a five-year-old's first attempt at daddy's computer? BadaBoom (talk) 09:13, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have an example of a timeline table which looks good? We're at the point where there are 51 quarters of timeline and 34 cameras.

And it's going to get worse. I believe we'll have at least two more this year alone. I suggest we expand the table. Let it be wider than the rest of the page. If people have to scroll left-right, so be it. Better than not being able to see it at all. Right now it's next to useless for historical data.

Another, much more elaborate and time consuming, idea would be to split the table. Something like this. Elegant, readable, intuitive. Split it at about 3/4 to go to "previous" and 1/4 to stay on the page with sustainability in mind. I believe the cut will be somewhere around Q4 2009.

I'd be happy to help but I'm not too good with Wikipedia tables. But if I can help with anything else other than the actual "script", I'll be glad to be useful.

PS I believe this is not the only problem spot. Look at the Nikon timeline. It's messier than a methed teenager's room. BadaBoom (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

HELLO!!! Whoever did this, you guys disrupted the table to a point where it's impossible to see, and did nothing to correct it. Either split it like I suggested or put it back as it was. Otherwise it's pure vandalism! BadaBoom (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Timeline Classification Misleading

There is no such thing from Canon Range as: "Flagship, High End and Mid-Range". According to the website, there are 3 classifications, they are: Entry Level | Enthusiast | Professional

Mid range and high end are too subjective to classify cameras. I believe the Canon Website is the most reliable and most objective in classifying the timeline. I didn't create the table and I don't want to ruin it an get in trouble. May I request to the creator or someone who is knowledgeable to fix it.

Visit here: http://www.canon.com.au/For-You/EOS-Digital-SLR-Cameras D. Lau (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Copied the above from Talk:Canon EOS 5D Mark III. Note the previous discussion on the same subject. GregorB (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Indeed, WP:RS supports the suggested classification. I'm volunteering to do it if there is a rough consensus in two weeks' time. GregorB (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I assumed all three 1D models fall in the "Professional" category. The rest is straightforward, per source. GregorB (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Advanced and Mid-range classification

Where did you see that Canon markets the 7D as in the 'same range' as the 5D ? If you look at the Canon website, that is not the case : http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_SLR/index.aspx

5D and 1D are both pro-grade cameras, with very similar specs. 7D is on the enthusiast segment. So is the 6D. But if you look closer at specs, 6D has much more "pro" features than the 7D : it is full-frame, it's weather-sealed, and it's bundled with the pro-grade lens 24-105 f4L - just as the 5D. Basically, the 6D is a "light" 5D.

Putting the 7D in 'advanced' and the 6D in 'mid-range' makes no sense whatsoever. at the very least, they should be both in advanced. The 6D retails at more than $2000, which is significantly more than a 7D, and twice the asking price of a 60D that you also put in "mid-range." I wouldn't call a $2000 camera mid-range.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.245.74 (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the changes both times because the summaries said one camera was better than another. The chart is organized per marketing niches as described above. (Canon apparently has changed it in the two years since, and doesn't really market the 7D as it is over 4 years old.) This current document:

http://www.usa.canon.com/CUSA/assets/app/pdf/camera/brochures/EOSSystem_0174W970.pdf calls the 6D an "advanced amateur" and the 7D as "reliable pro-level performance". The problem I had with the new layout was that putting the 6D with the 5D, and the 7D with the 60D/70D, groups the full-frame sensors together with nothing to distinguish between them. Same for small-sensors. I don't own either, but personally I would group the 7D with the 5D because they have similar magnesium body construction, similar control layouts (eg joystick), and similar user-interface. The 6D is more like the 60D in construction and controls. I'm hoping that the rumoured upgrade to the 7D will resolve this! (Sorry to take so long, but I've been caught in a very large IP-range block preventing any Wikipedia edits) 108.96.175.145 (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I guess I was too late... the change was made anyway but I won't revert it again. Not worth the trouble. 108.96.100.101 (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify... this was in regards to the switching of 6D with 7D models on the table. The only argument for switching them is price. I find the current layout confusing at best. 108.96.81.238 (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Color key isn't rendered in Firefox 28.0a1

Template displayed in Firefox 28.0a1 Nightly. The bottom row should use colored backgrounds to distinguish the different DIGIC versions

The key that explains that colors map to DIGIC versions isn't visible in Firefox Nightly build. Also, the difference between mauve (DIGIC) and blue (DIGIC II) is almost invisible to person with protanopia or deuteranopia (per Etre test page). It might be a good idea to use a text annotation to distinguish DIGIC versions in addition to the color key. - Pointillist (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It is visible in Firefox 27, and I fail those two tests. However... What's the point of distinguishing DIGIC versions in this table? It does not really indicate anything about the capabilities of each camera. The progression of DIGIC processors is purely chronological: the chart shows that each camera uses the latest available processor. I think the current chart is trying to distinguish too many items. SwineFlew? (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this still a problem in Firefox? For a history lesson, I added the different colours for different DIGIC processors when the cell bgcolor has been previously used to indicate "video capable". I agree that the density of all the info going into the table is making it harder to read over time. --WikiWikiPhil (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the digic colors was a cool idea when you implemented it, but try taking them off and let's see how the table looks then. If it looked better with the digic colors in the table we can always put them back. The Film SLR EOS table doesn't have colors and it looks fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catclaw666 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Placing 5D in the pro category.

Hey guys. I made a tweak to the table. I put the 5D series up in the professional category since that seems to be the prevailing press by Canon marketing (1D X and 5D III are the two professional cameras.) Anyway what do you guys all think? I saw someone added 'flagship category, which also makes sense, but I think it's getting to differential. We're 2 cameras away from just having a separate category for every body if we do that.

Oh, and I linked this table together with the film SLR table at the bottom.

Anyway, what does everyone think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.174.85 (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Special formatting for hybrid autofocus and dual digic?

I'd like to remove the following markup:

• use of italic (hybrid autofocus)
• double-underline (dual DIGIC)

They're too specific to have distinctive formatting, and like "video-capable" before, once the feature is added then it's generally present in all later versions. --WikiWikiPhil (talk) 14:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah dude, go ahead and get rid of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catclaw666 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and made this change. Anterras (talk) 18:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Readability

The alternate names for the entry-level cameras make the table harder to read, especially with the third row (100D). I think we should go back to just the xxxxD model numbers. Anterras (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey man! You always have really good ideas. But I think that we should keep it the way it is currently for the only reason that people in Europe and other countries have to find these things by their alternative names, like the Rebel Kiss. If we change it and they aren't in the United States they won't know what camera they're trying to find in the table. That is the only reason I say keep it how it is. I agree the table looks kind of stupid with the big boxes for those cameras though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catclaw666 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely a concern that American and Japanese readers would be thrown off by seeing only the xxxxD names. The crowded information is just going to get worse, though, when we add 2015, 2016, etc. Anterras (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is a handy cross-reference for the entry-level model names, but the bottom of the table has become too cluttered/busy. A couple other ideas:

-Leave the full model names in the 300D block, but remove the "KISS", "Digital", and "Rebel" from all of the others. But... would this be too confusing for users?

-Relegate the D30 & D60 cameras to the "Early models" and start the table at 2003. The resulting wider columns might condense the height of the third row.

108.114.2.75 (talk) 00:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Starting the table at a later year would help a bit, but it really just postpones the problem. What if we did something like this, and split the different names into separate pages? (Note the regional links below the header). Anterras (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Could it default to the Japanese version when a user uses a KISS redirect? Your sandbox definitely looks much cleaner in "normal" width browser windows. But, like Catclaw666 mentioned, one use of the current table is to "translate" between Canon's regional model names in a single glance. Is there any way to fit something like '450D/XSi/X2' or maybe '450D (XSi/X2)'? The suggestion to start with 2003 was mainly to eliminate the empty void on the left, a separate issue really. 184.209.3.169 (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that seen all regional names of the entry-level models in a single glance is a good thing, but i see the issue as a compromise between completeness of information and readability. Sometimes less is more. I like Anterras' idea, and i want to suggest an improvement: in either of the three regions, mousing over the entry-level model names would show a bullet with the other two names of that particular model (something like a comment on a spreadsheet cell). I'm not sure how feasible is that, but i think it's an interesting compromise.Daniel.ee07 (talk) 12:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That could be a good way to preserve the information without being messy. Can you figure out how to do it in the sandbox, so we can see? Anterras (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know of any way to detect a redirect. Is it possible? Compressing the alternate names to just the model numbers is a good idea, though what would you call the 300D alternates? Anterras (talk) 06:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what to do with the 300D... while "300D/Rebel/Kiss" fits on one line in a full HD width browser window, most users would probably still see that row as two or three lines. I'd say go ahead with your change. Maybe someone else will see it and have a better idea. 108.114.2.46 (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I did some poking around, and it's not possible to detect redirects. An alternative would be to transclude the base page instead of redirecting. I have an example here, which points to here. (Note how the embedded timeline changes). Anterras (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Canon considers the 7D line "APS-C flagship"

In this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U07tgCXmJn4 a Canon representative talks about the 7D line to be Canon's flagship for the APS-C sized sensor line. Maybe this should be reflected in the chart. IOOI (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Time to split the template?

Now that there are fifteen years of information here, I think it might not be a bad idea to explore splitting this off into a 2000-2010 template, and a 2010-2020 template (which would reflect 2010-2015). On smaller screens, the Rebel line is incredibly narrow in relation to the height, and it makes the template look really funky. If anyone doesn't object, then I'll start moving things around in a week, since I think the time has come to split things up here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The same question was raised on the corresponding Nikon template, and I suggested turning things through 90 degrees, which would allow everything to fit. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 14:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I also brought up the idea of trimming the Rebel names, in the Readability section above. We have several options here. Anterras (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to reply until now, but I think keeping things more consistent with what is there would be the better idea, because I don't really see a reason to have things go straight down. If anything, my fear is that if we do that, we might not have a limit and the template could take up half of the vertical aspect of the page, instead of being linear. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

An arbitary split of the kind you proposed is a much, much worse idea in terms of "consistency". Samsara (FA • FP) 03:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's okay as it is. It looks fine on my screen to be honest. Maybe in 5 more years there could be a problem, but I don't see one now. The APS-C line of camera bodies may be gone by that point and everything will be full-frame. The identical template chart of film camera bodies spans a longer range of years and it still looks fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catclaw666 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There are just too many models. At this point we should split the Entry Level cameras into their own template. 184.209.7.248 (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

At this point, I would support splitting it, as both this one and the Canon model template are crunching up on narrow screens to the point where the quarter numbers are in the next column. If you have a wide screen, of course it will look fine, but it is a burden on narrow screens. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Split ideas

It's clear there are people who support splitting the template, so would anyone object if we had two templates, one for 2000-2010 (or 2009) and another for the rest of it? I am currently working on something in my sandbox that could be used, since no one seems to taking the lead and designing something at this point. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I would object: this is a timeline... splitting it by date would defeat the purpose. 108.114.10.89 (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

That may be so, but I am trying to model this off of car manufacturer models where they split periodically. The idea is to have a link to the next grouping, so that resembles something like this template from Honda. Granted, they go by year and not manufacturing quarter, but the point is that it needs to be easy to navigate the template, not something where someone on a small screen is unable to read it because everything crams up and is hard to read. On the laptop that I own, this template is easy to read, but that is because I have a fifteen inch screen. At work, the monitor is twelve or thirteen inches, and everything crowds up, to the point where any more additions are just going to squish things together. If we keep adding to the template as it stands, it will allow for us to be a bit more flexible. Reading the template as it stands right now, the text for the new 5D and 750D are running off the template, so that is also something which would be addressed in a new template layout. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)