Talk:Canon EOS

Initial talk

There appear to be no sources cited at all, and a fair amount of opinion in this article. Shensey (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Any reason why the 'advanced prosumer' description isn't in the table with the other marker segments. It would be easier to read and quicker for readers to work out the naming scheme. Prosumer is a made up segment anyway so that is not an argument against it. --Danio 09:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The list of EOS Cameras makes it look like primarily a digital series. There are 5 relatively recent digital SLRs listed, and 1 film SLR (the EOS 650, I guess the first one). The EOS-650 isn't exactly representative of the EOS film bodies.  :-)

How about at least including all of the current EOS cameras? That would be, it looks like, EOS-1v/1vHS, EOS-3, EOS Elan 7N/7NE, EOS Rebel T2, Ti, K2, GII (film bodies) and EOS-1Ds mark II, EOS-1Ds, EOS-1D mark II, EOS 20D, EOS 10D, and EOS Digital Rebel (digital bodies). (Just reading off canoneos.com here.)

(Also, if I had to pick a camera photo to represent the EOS series, I'd pick one of the EOS-1 line. But that's just me.)

If you're looking for more information, I'd mention eye-controlled focus (ECF), which I believe is only available on EOS bodies, and image stabilization (IS), which I believe was first available on EOS lenses.

What about a section about IS (Image stabiliser) and USM (ultrasonic motor)

-- Just changed the section on L-series lenses a little bit - not *all* L-series lenses have flourite elements, but all have at least UD elements. The 70-200 f2.8L, for example, has no flourite. http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/lens/ef/data/ef_70~200_28l_usm_bd.html has the block diagram.

table missing 450d

the table at the bottom is missing 450d, but i dont know how to fix it. --87.127.117.246 (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The four first DSLRs should be in the table

In my opinion, EOS DCS3, DCS1, D2000 and D6000 should be in the timeline table even if their digital guts were constructed by Kodak - any comments? Rkarlsba (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Eye-controlled focus (ECF)

Now that EOS film is re-birthing as historical artifact, and since ECF is a lost secret (like the building of the pyramids), maybe there should be an Eye-controlled focus page. What is kind of cool about EOS film is that top lenses are still being made for it through digital EOS, and film has yet to give way to digital, as it is more convenient at the low-end, and more sensitive at the high end.

The paragraph sends the reader to the table, but the table does not specify ECF within model groups as ECF appeared only on some sub-models in at least some cases--and without consistent badging (still looking. I personally prefer a fully-mechanical shutter-release camera, and my interest in ECF is purely to satisfy curiosity.) --John Bessa (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

re-classification of xxD

I have to object to the claim that the XXD series continuation is now aimed at consumer and entry level photographers and is below the level of an "advanced amateur/enthusiast/prosumer". I agree that the 60D was not met with great prosumer reaction. In fact the 50D has on average gone up in price because people are very disappointed at things like the lack of a magnesium body. But, the 60D came in at roughly the same price point as it's predecessor with many more improvements (higher resolution, higher standard ISO, video [w/ manual audio control], SDHC/SHXC support, the LP-E6 battery that is used in the 7D and 5D MK II, wireless speedlite control, and an electronic level. The negatives are simply the micro AF, lack of magnesium, and and a negligible reduction in burst frame rate (still 43% higher FPS than any prior rebel). Also, the 60D has the pentaprism viewfinder not the pentamirror viewfinder that is listed as Typically Common Features of the entry level cameras. Before "Prosumer" existed the xxD line was the entry level professional digital camera, it pretty much invented prosumer. Canon has listed as their current DSLR models:

• Rebel XS @ MSRP: $550 (with the $190 18-55 IS kit lens)
• Rebel XSi @ $650 (w/lens)
• Rebel T1i @ $750 (w/lens)
• Rebel T2i @ $900 (w/lens)
• 50D @ $1100 (body only)
• 60D @ $1100 (body only)
• 7D @ $1700 (body only)
• 5D MKII @ $2500 (body only)

and then the ridiculous ones starting at $4000. The claim on this page right now is that the line between "Advanced amateur/enthusiast/prosumer" and "Consumer/Entry-level" is between the 50D an the 60D with the 50D being prosumer and the 60D being entry level. That is absurd. It's simply some prosumer sticking his or her nose up at the "plastic body" camera with the "tilty-swively screen". I assert that the 60D and 7D are meant to grab the bottom and top of the popular "prosumer" market while the rebels are aimed at the consumer/entry-level market. There aren't many people who are going to spend what the 60D costs who are buying their first SLR or are buying it to take pictures of jimmy blowing out his birthday candles. I am going to remove the line that claims the 60D (which is $1400 with a kit lens) is an entry level or consumer camera and isn't up to the level of your "advanced amateur". -- UmassThrower (talk • contribs) 07:27, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you're going to make a statement like "Since 2010, 2-digit EOS model number (xxD) is also used to designate the continuation of what used to be known as the Rebel line." That is completely contradicted by what is on canon's own website then you should cite the source. UmassThrower (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Similarity of EF mount with Contax G mount

The Contax G mount is body screw driven (i.e. the motor is in the camera body) and there are no electrical contacts between the body and the lens. The G system never switched to having the motors in the lenses as is implied in the article. 86.182.219.214 (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Canon EOS-1DX Mark III.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

General article issues

I've done some cleanup, but there are still numerous issues with this article:

- Some of the prose is written in a promotional tone, e.g. "at the heart of the system" reads like marketing material

- The Cameras section is primarily taken up by the naming scheme tables. Prose detailing the history of camera development within the system would be better

- The article has had the primary sources warning for over 17 years

- Some of the prose needs to be updated from when it was written in 2017, e.g. the autofocus system prose claiming that current flagship EOS cameras have about 60 autofocus points (the R1 has over 4000)

I'm sure there are more, but these are the main issues I've noticed. I propose simplifying the naming scheme tables and splitting the "Cameras" section into "Film" and "Digital" with appropriate historical prose in each. Serebit (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I've partially taken care of the first two items. The digital cameras section needs to be expanded, though, and a mirrorless cameras section should be added. I may do that myself in the future. Serebit (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

The digital cameras section has been expanded with the majority of noteworthy Canon EOS DSLRs. I'll add mirrorless cameras soon. Serebit (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Other than the autofocus system section needing an update, I'm pretty happy with the state of the article after my changes. Once the aforementioned section gets fixed, I'd call this B-class. Serebit (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks good now. Thank you very much.  Stepho  talk  02:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs Thanks for the ref edit. I was using the automatic citation generator and only did manual cleanup once or twice. Will pay more attention in the future. Serebit (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs While I have you here, do you have any critiques of the prose I wrote for the cameras/naming sections? This was my first real "rewrite" of an article and I'd welcome feedback if you have time to spare. Serebit (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, so I didn't fact check every detail but it seems good to me. Nothing stuck out as obviously wrong and it's got a nice consistent flow to it.  Stepho  talk  13:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Multi-point autofocus system

I'm debating on removing this section entirely. Having multiple autofocus points isn't really noteworthy and hasn't been for a decade and a half. If an autofocus-related feature is to be mentioned, the Dual Pixel AF system is a decent candidate: it's unique to Canon, is found on all of their EOS R cameras and some preceding DSLRs, and has unique properties compared to traditional phase and contrast detection. Serebit (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Rewrote this subsection, converted it to an Autofocus section, and moved the ECF subsection into it. Also upgraded the page to B-class; I think it's gotten good enough to qualify. Serebit (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Canon EOS/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Serebit (talk · contribs) 22:50, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Z1720 (talk · contribs) 21:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am sorry to do this, but I am going to quick-fail this nomination due to uncited statements, including entire paragraphs and the entire "Flash system" section. This can be renominated once everything is cited. I also do not think "KenRockwell.com" is a reliable source and a better source should be found. Z1720 (talk) 21:34, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA review 2

Second GA review was at talk:Canon EOS/GA2.  Stepho  talk  04:09, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Replying here as the GA2 subpage was closed:

@Bgsu98 I see. Thanks for letting me know—I suppose that explains some things... I'm very much anti-LLM personally, and none of my work in this article was generated with an LLM, nor did I use an LLM to find references. It's disheartening that some contributors won't even bother to review an article without using one. Serebit (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Competition statement in lead removed

I removed a misleading statement in the lead. I will paste the source here in case it can be used for something else:

• Stanley, Branden (2018-09-02). "Canon EOS 650 - Review of the First EF Camera". That Vintage Lens. Archived from the original on 2025-08-01. Retrieved 2025-10-27.

Commander Keane (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Commander Keane I won't contest the removal (that section was modified from a pre-Serebit version of the article and I never found it to flow very well even after my edits), but I'm curious what specifically you find misleading. Is it just inaccuracy when compared to the cited source? Also, thanks for the copy editing! Serebit (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Serebit: diff for context. Yeah, when I looked there wasn't actually anything saying Canon competed with Minolta or Leica (the brands were mentioned, but nothing about competition). Commander Keane (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Commander Keane Ah, yeah. I had trouble finding a source to back up the original statement, so I used the closest one I could find. Best to just remove it. Serebit (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Serebit: i think the topic of competion should be covered. Maybe there is a source covering market share between the major players versus EOS over time. Commander Keane (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Commander Keane I took a quick look for sources that could cover competition over time, but I couldn't find anything that fit the bill. What I did find was this, which doesn't directly cover what EOS competed against but does give background information for which brands had high-demand SLRs in the time just before EOS was introduced (1982): https://petapixel.com/2021/08/31/10-of-the-hottest-35mm-cameras-you-could-buy-in-1982/

And another one for 1991, which includes the EOS-1: https://petapixel.com/2021/09/22/the-10-hottest-35mm-cameras-you-could-buy-in-1991/ Serebit (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Serebit, I had a look through The Wikipedia Library (I imagine you are eligible, from memory it is easy to sign up). There are way, way too many results to make getting the good stuff easy. If anyone searches, I would recommend including interchangeable, DSLR or EOS and filtering by decade. Also, be aware of newswires/press releases as Wikipedia doesn't favour those. Anyway, after drowning in stories I found a market share tidbit and added it to the article. Commander Keane (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Your addition says "In July 2010, Peck reported". Who or what is Peck? It is not mentioned in the article or the reference.  Stepho  talk  01:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, I corrected the article. If you view the PDF Full Text (132KB) in the The Wikipedia Library link in the citation, it says In the U.S., according to Peck, Canon ranked No. 1.... I was so excited to find independently published information other than a camera release and specification, that I assumed Peck was a well known research and analytics company or something similar. Turns out it refers to Eliott Peck, Canon USA digital imaging division senior VP and general manager, who is introduced earlier in the Trade Magazine article. Commander Keane (talk) 13:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, that (and your update in the article) makes sense now.  Stepho  talk  22:07, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Canon EOS/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Serebit (talk · contribs) 13:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Joereddington (talk · contribs) 13:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, as part of the initial stages of this review I checked the existing GA-class camera pages: Sigma_8-16mm_f/4.5-5.6_DC_HSM_lens (which I suspect should be re-assessed and Canon_EOS_R.

I'm not an professional photographer (and I use Nikon) but I have a general understanding of the process.

Review to follow.

Okay, so - I understand this has had a difficult time with GA reviews. Let me try and make this process a little easier.

Initial thoughts before I do the proper template

• Lead - you should probably mention that EOS is (I understand) Cannon's flagship
• Development - the first paragraph is hard to understand. I think it's saying that the whole point of EOS is that it's autofocus-based - have I understood that correctly? My take would be that the point is that it was based around the EF mount, which allowed the focus motor to be in the lens rather than the body... I would say this distinction needs to be quite a lot clearer in the developement section
• The film camera section starts with the _second_ film camera released in the line?
• I understand why you have put the colapsable timelines where they are, but I feel like they just all belong at the bottom. I don't have a policy reason for it tho.
• You split the article into film, digital and mirrorless cameras. There are a couple of issues here:
  • Mirrorless cameras _are_ digital so I would think it would be better to call that section 'digital SLR'
  • You split two of the sections by decade, but it's not really clear why - it's not like there was a cultural shift in 2010. Moreover, you open each of those sections with a paragraph about the previous decade, rather than an overview.
  • The sections themselves are largely just lists of camera releases. There is very little in the way of "Used by X photographer for Y" or "was reviewed by magazine Z and found to be S" - some commentary and critism would make these work a lot better, at the moment they don't give much more information than the timelines.
• The naming section feels like it should be above the film/digita/mirrorless stuff (I also think it could be briefer and be more thoroughly sourced to avoid looking like OR) - I also feel like that about the autofocus section.

There is more for me to read but that's as far as I've got so far...

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is generally clear and readable. However, the opening paragraph of the Development section is hard to follow for non-specialists: the relationship between the T80, the FD mount, the EF mount and the EOS system is not clearly explained, and it currently reads as if “autofocus-based” is the core defining idea of EOS rather than the move to a fully electronic mount with focus motors in the lenses. In general this reads like an article for camera nerds (and I think I am one) rather than a more general audience. Some longer paragraphs in the digital and mirrorless sections) read like dense model-by-model catalogues and could be trimmed or grouped for readability. Phrases such as “promising enough” and “high-performance microprocessor” are a little conversational/promotional and could be rephrased or clearly attributed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead is okay but should more clearly state that EOS is Canon’s flagship interchangeable-lens camera system, and briefly summarise key themes such as the EF→RF mount transition, and the coverage of naming, autofocus and flash systems later in the article (per WP:LEAD). The structural split into Film cameras, Digital cameras and Mirrorless cameras could be clearer: since mirrorless cameras are a subset of digital cameras, it may be better to label the DSLR section accordingly and then treat mirrorless as its own major era. The decade-based subsections (2000s/2010s etc.) are not obviously motivated; if retained, a short overview sentence at the start of each explaining what characterises that era would help. The Film cameras section currently opens with the second EOS body; it would be more intuitive to introduce the first EOS film cameras before moving on to the EOS-1. The collapsible timelines are useful, but their current placement breaks the narrative flow; it may work better to group them together (e.g. towards the end of the article).
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	At a glance, the reference list is extensive and formatted consistently, but lots of facts seem to be missing quite findable citations. Given that a a previous GA failed over this, I would be red-hot on getting this right.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	As above, I forgot how the template worked.
	2c. it contains no original research.	There is a potential risk of light synthesis, particularly in the Naming and Autofocus sections, where high-level “rules” (fewer digits = higher-end, higher model number within a digit range = newer/higher-end, historical AF-system progression, etc.) are described. Please make sure these generalisations are _explicitly_ supported by sources that state them, or else soften the wording and frame them as tendencies, with citations. Likewise, the historical narrative of autofocus point counts and coverage should be clearly anchored to individual sources rather than inferred solely from spec comparisons.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No obvious copyvio or close paraphrasing stands out on a read-through; the text feels written in a consistent editorial voice. That said, because a lot of specialist reviews are used, it would be worth doing a quick spot-check to ensure that any technical or evaluative phrases are properly paraphrased rather than closely mirroring the source wording.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The format-based sections (film/DSLR / mirrorless) are currently dominated by lists of bodies and specs. To better satisfy this criterion, it would help to bring out more about how key models were received and used: for example, summarising what major reviews said (positive and negative), and briefly indicating particular areas of real-world adoption (e.g. sports, wildlife, video, entry-level users). You already cite many reviews; drawing a bit more explicitly on what they concluded will add depth beyond the timelines. Also consider tweaking the Film cameras section so it starts with the first EOS bodies rather than the second, to make the progression clearer to the reader.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	In general, the article stays focused on the EOS system and does not wander far off-topic. If anything, some subsections may be a little over-detailed in terms of minor model variations and spec lists. Trimming repetitive details for mid-range or incremental updates, and grouping some similar models together, would tighten the narrative and improve focus, especially in the decade-subsections where the text currently reads as a long series of announcements.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	The overall tone is neutral and not unduly promotional. Nonetheless, there are scattered instances of mildly promotional or weasel wording (“high-performance microprocessor”, “ultra-budget”, “received critical acclaim”) that should either be toned down, placed in quotation marks, or clearly attributed to named sources.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The article appears stable, with no obvious signs of ongoing edit-warring or major content disputes on the article itself at present. Assuming this continues during the review process, this criterion should be satisfied.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The article is well illustrated with images of key EOS bodies and components. As long as all images are properly hosted on Commons (or tagged with valid non-free rationales if applicable), and have clear licensing information, this criterion should be met
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images generally seem relevant and appropriately captioned; they help the reader understand the appearance and evolution of the system (e.g. representative film, DSLR and mirrorless bodies, and the EF mount).
	7. Overall assessment.	Overall this is a very promising article with strong sourcing and a lot of well-organised technical and historical detail. The main outstanding issues are: (i) clarifying and tightening the Development section and some of the long list-like paragraphs; (ii) strengthening the lead to state EOS’s flagship status and to summarise the EF/RF story and the naming/autofocus/flash content; (iii) ensuring that interpretive statements (especially in the Naming and Autofocus sections, and on model reception) are explicitly sourced and, where appropriate, attributed; (iv) adding a bit more sourced material on reception and real-world usage so the lists become more than spec histories; and (v) toning down or attributing the few promotional/weasel phrases and considering minor structural tweaks (e.g. section ordering, decade breaks, and timeline placement). Once these are addressed, the article should be in a strong position to meet the GA criteria.

I have to say, at this point, I think it might be a slog to get to GA, but I also think it might be a worthwhile slog and I also think those slogs are good for all of us to improve our editing.

Joe (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Joe! I'm still learning how to properly follow the MOS (I had never put this much work into an article before) so I welcome all nitpicks. I'll take care of the low-hanging fruit first to get it out of the way, then I'll dive into the larger changes that you've suggested.

For the sake of context, the Naming section was initially at the top, and I moved it lower when adding the Development section. The digital and mirrorless sections are split by decade just out of a desire to keep both sections from droning on with no breaks—I agree that there should be more reason behind such subsections and I'll figure out a way to improve them.

With respect to original research, I've tried my best to stick only to statements that I can attribute to sources, but I probably slipped up in a few places. I'll do another pass to fix some of those. Serebit (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I get it.

For me (and this goes beyond GA review so feel free to ignore) it feels the film/DSLR and mirrorless sections want to be overlapping 'eras' rather than lists of releases. There are other ways to demark eras tho - chief designers for example. Another thing that isn't a GA-revevent thing is that there isn't much 'people' in this article. I'm not looking for gossip but a few quotes or interviews with designers, camera historians, would go a long way (like, the fact that Fujio Mitarai isn't mentioned at all is pretty odd, and you should probably find a way to talk about Hironori Oishi). In fact, as I write this, what I really think would help with the article is some arms-length sober sources about the _EOS range itself_. Most of your sources are for individual facts and you'd be surprised how much it helps to have a 'big book'. That even includes things like the official Canon history: https://global.canon/en/corporate/pdf/pdf/canon-story-2025-2026-e.pdf.

A couple of other source that I would use (I haven't checked if these are in, if they are, then there are some good quotes that can still be pulled out)

• https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/1275771333/greater-freedom-canon-s-engineers-talk-about-the-eos-r-project?utm_source=chatgpt.com
• https://www.g-mark.org/en/gallery/winners/9ddb7777-803d-11ed-af7e-0242ac130002?companies=55e31651-6d69-499f-b865-615e7d47fb31&utm_source=chatgpt.com

Joe (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to ask that you don't use ChatGPT for this review in any capacity. Serebit (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

np, I can see why you might say that given the article's history. We're all on different bits of that particular issue (I'm on "ask questions and check for errors", but I see the previous GA reviewer was bordering on satire...) Joe (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I've improved the introduction (though more work needs doing), added more information to the Development section, and reclassified the Mirrorless subsections by the EOS M and EOS R systems. It's a start! Serebit (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I've done some additional work to get things cleaned up. I'm still not done, but the following items can be rechecked as they should have seen improvement: 1a, 1b, 2c, 3a, and 4. I'll also note on the topic of item 2c that the naming statements are covered by the sources that the paragraphs cite: I made sure to avoid any statements that ran contrary to the sources. Autofocus was a bit of a mess but I removed the number-of-points progression paragraph as it didn't really add anything. Serebit (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Will check properly later, but my issue with the naming section wasn't that it _was_ OR, just that without each individual sentence being cited it _looks and feels_ very OR. I appreciate official guidance is to cite at the end of the paragraph but I'd like to protect it from some future editor who doesn't check the sources... Joe (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I've reviewed the changes and they are very encouraging. As you say, there is more to be done, but I imagine that criteria 4 at least is dealt with... Joe (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

Fair point. I've updated the citations in the first Naming paragraph to be per-sentence and added an additional citation to cover my bases. Serebit (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Excellent. I don't want to be too much over-your-shoulder on this - I think the most effective use of time is that you take the article as far as you can in light of the assessment and then ping me on my talk page to come and do another full review. After an iteration we might move to a 'list of minor things the reviewer complains about' in a list, but right now it's about you feeling able and free to rewrite structurally. Make sense? Joe (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

@Joereddington Sounds good! Serebit (talk) 13:22, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Just to help me out a bit here, is there a particular section in the current version of the article that closely approaches what you'd consider "good article" quality? It'd help to have a reference point in my own work that I can use to bring up the rest of the article contents. Serebit (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm, I think the first paragraph of the autofocus section is now definitely GA. The second paragraph needs a bit of work (I know what you mean about the mirror folding up, but the general reader will not).

The naming section is now pleasantly GA standard, but a brief spot-check suggests that "This practice was officially ceased" isn't in the source (or at least, the translated version that my browser gives me). For the next iteration of the review I think I'll have to do a bit more of a thorough (but not horrific) spot check :s Joe (talk) 07:35, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I think I see what I need to do to clean up the article... and you were right, it's going to be a slog. I'll have to gut the SLR/DSLR/Mirrorless sections and only cover actual shifts in the series, like the 5D II's impact on hybrid shooting, probably in a combined History section. It'll be much less content, but it'll be a lot more streamlined and less catalogue-ish. Serebit (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

I've reorganized much of the article, added numerous citations, expanded on general concepts, and removed unnecessary fluff. I'm sure it still needs work and I have some ideas for improvement, but I think I'm ready for a full re-review whenever you have the time. Serebit (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

That's the ball game. I've updated the status. Well done. Joe (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I was not expecting to wake up to acceptance! Thank you so much for your help in this process (and for the Barnstar). It means a lot! Now to see if there's anything worth submitting for DYK... Serebit (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that DSLR cameras in the Canon EOS series were used to film portions of House, Dexter, and Iron Man 2?

• Source: "The final scenes of Iron Man 2 (2010) used the 5D Mark II for action shots." "Director Greg Yaitanes shot the season 6 finale of House M.D. using only the Canon 5D Mark II as his camera." "Dexter used the 5D Mark II." https://fstoppers.com/historical/how-canon-5d-mark-ii-accidentally-created-indie-film-revolution-715575

• • ALT1: ... that the last flagship film camera in the Canon EOS series was manufactured from 2000 to 2018? Source: "Canon has announced it has ceased production of its flagship film body, the EOS-1V" https://www.dpreview.com/news/6195788222/canon-drops-flagship-eos-1v-film-body-and-projects-end-date-for-repairs (note source date)
  • ALT2: ... that Pete Souza used DSLR cameras in the Canon EOS series while working as the Chief Official White House Photographer for former President of the United States Barack Obama? Source: "While at the White House shooting 2 million photos over 8 years of Barack Obama’s presidency, Souza used two Canon 5D series cameras." https://petapixel.com/2020/04/04/a-look-into-white-house-photographer-pete-souzas-camera-bag/
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Serebit (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Serebit (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC).

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting: - I think ALT0 and ALT2 are more interesting than ALT1.
• Other problems: - For ALT0, the article says "first as a secondary camera for action shots in films such as Iron Man 2, and later as the primary camera in some episodes of television shows such as House and Dexter", but the source doesn't refer to them as secondary or primary cameras, just that it was used in Iron Man 2, House, and Dexter. The source just mentions that it was the only camera for an episode of House. ALT2 is okay.

QPQ: None required.

Overall: @Serebit: Nice work on this article. I just had a comment above that needed addressing (under "Other problems"). Epicgenius (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2025 (UTC)

• @Epicgenius: Thanks for the review! I just updated the phrase used in the article to more closely align with the cited source. Serebit (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2025 (UTC).
  • No problem, and thanks for fixing the article. Looks good now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2025 (UTC)