Talk:Canon EOS 350D
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Image examples
I find example images that are taken with [insert camera model] are irrelevant in wikipedia articles, since these tell us nothing of the camera but rather the talent (or lack of talent) of the person that took the photo in question. Would it not be more fitting to put such images in a commons category (like Nikon D70 images), then anyone could find example images without cluttering the article about the tool that was used. The entire process would probably be even easier should someone make an external application รก la Interiot's user contributions counter that would wade through embedded EXIF data. Scoo 12:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I think people (myself included) find some example images useful. This does not mean there can't be a gallery elsewhere as well. Johntex\talk 16:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- If anything they tell use more about the lens used than the camera.Reub2000 23:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's beyond the scope of Wikipedia to be a source of sample images for digital cameras. There are enough other websites for that kind of thing, like Dpreview.--Thomas Ploeger 21:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Swapped gallery for link to flickr.com which has more than 8 million photos taken with said camera. Scoo 20:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's beyond the scope of Wikipedia to be a source of sample images for digital cameras. There are enough other websites for that kind of thing, like Dpreview.--Thomas Ploeger 21:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Image used in infobox
The current image used in the infobox is that of the 350D with a 3rd-party lens. Maybe it's better to show the camera with the lens that is sold with the camera in the kit? --Thomas Ploeger 21:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The range
I'm curious what is ment with "The range was initially announced in February 2005". It's the second sentence of the first paragraph. The camera was announced in February 2005, but the range of EOS digital SLR's existed before that.--Thomas Ploeger 21:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The 5 Millisecond Coffee Blob picture
It seems to me to be a flash photograph, so the 1/200 sec shutter speed (.005 sec = 5 millisec) would be the synchronization speed for flash photos. A 1/200 second image would be blurred for motion so large relative to the frame. The actual duration of the electronic flash, which would be severely quenched for the closeup, would be 1/10,000 sec or less. I'm sure of my analysis, so though I could be wrong I think it should be relabeled. Hu 04:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
