Talk:Canon EOS

Canon EOS is currently a Computing and engineering good article nominee. Nominated by Serebit (talk) at 13:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC) Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.) Short description: Autofocus system camera product line

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Canon EOS article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Canon EOS was nominated as a Engineering and technology good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (October 8, 2025, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Brands Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Photography Mid‑importance This article 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. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.