Wikipedia and Canon

I have a hard time keeping the various specifications from different cameras all straight. I know I don't really need to but sometimes it helps when reading a post to get a feel for where the poster is coming from or what they are talking about. I found it to be cumbersome to go to B&H or some other vendor and look them up and of course they don't have the older models.

I found that I can go to Wikipedia and put in a model , Canon 5D for instance, and get all the specs very quickly.

At the bottom of a models page they have a Canon EOS time-line that has all the various EOS models linked. - VERY HANDY.

The sensor sizes are all put together here as well.

The life of the 5D in that timeline looks sooooo long. Can't wait for 5D II.

Reefbone wrote in post #4106470
I have a hard time keeping the various specifications from different cameras all straight.

The specifications for all current Canon cameras are easily found at www.canonusa.com No need to hassle yourself with reseller websites for this info.

RedHot wrote in post #4106817
The specifications for all current Canon cameras are easily found at www.canonusa.com No need to hassle yourself with reseller websites for this info.

Canon has a website? Seriously though, I find Wikiperdia faster and easier on the eyes than Canon or any Vendor site. Wiki doesn't have all that animated cr_p and advertisements. I was surprised at the model detail available on Wikipedia and just thought I'd share. It might also help dial up users since the page doesn't seem so bandwidth intensive.

Reefbone wrote in post #4107193
Canon has a website? Seriously though, I find Wikiperdia faster and easier on the eyes than Canon or any Vendor site. Wiki doesn't have all that animated cr_p and advertisements.

Man, ain't that the truth.

Vendors for some reason insist on using a pile of inane "technology" that winds up making their site harder to read and use (when it's supposed to make it better). Guess that's what happens when you have a bunch of marketing guys deciding what the site should look like.

Wikipedia is an excellent resource in general, in my experience. Check out their pages on things like f-stops, exposure, 35mm film, etc. They even have a page on the rule of thirds. Good stuff.

Reefbone wrote in post #4107193
Seriously though, I find Wikiperdia faster and easier on the eyes than Canon or any Vendor site. Wiki doesn't have all that animated cr_p and advertisements.

I also agree, they (Canon and others) go to overboard with flash (which I personally don't like as it really isn't any faster).
The Wikipedia site does come in handy often to my eyes

I like the Canon Camera Museum. You can find out information about any Canon or lens ever made.

kcbrown wrote in post #4107691
Man, ain't that the truth.

Vendors for some reason insist on using a pile of inane "technology" that winds up making their site harder to read and use (when it's supposed to make it better). Guess that's what happens when you have a bunch of marketing guys deciding what the site should look like.


Wikipedia is an excellent resource in general, in my experience. Check out their pages on things like f-stops, exposure, 35mm film, etc. They even have a page on the rule of thirds. Good stuff.

You're assuming that was in on the wikipedia is even accurate since anyone can change any page any day!

I can get to the SLR camera/lens page in 5 seconds from the front page of www.canonusa.com it's very simple and in plain view. You want the correct info? Go to the manufacturer's site.

I certainly agree that Wikipedia pages can change significantly in a short period of time. My experience, though, is that errors (whether intentional or not) are usually corrected relatively quickly.

That's not necessarily true of all pages, of course. Pages addressing controversial subjects tend to be changed often by people with different viewpoints. But I somehow suspect that camera specs don't exactly qualify as "controversial".

Also note that you can always look at previous versions of any given page to see the differences.

Wikipedia isn't an authoritative source, and I'm certainly not going to claim that it is. But in my experience it has been a very useful reference, and the content on it is generally put there and maintained by people who care a lot about the subject they're addressing.

kcbrown wrote in post #4108115
I certainly agree that Wikipedia pages can change significantly in a short period of time. My experience, though, is that errors (whether intentional or not) are usually corrected relatively quickly.

That's not necessarily true of all pages, of course. Pages addressing controversial subjects tend to be changed often by people with different viewpoints. But I somehow suspect that camera specs don't exactly qualify as "controversial".

Also note that you can always look at previous versions of any given page to see the differences.

Wikipedia isn't an authoritative source, and I'm certainly not going to claim that it is. But in my experience it has been a very useful reference, and the content on it is generally put there and maintained by people who care a lot about the subject they're addressing.

I agree 100%. It is stupid when people act like you cannot believe anything on wikipedia...the moderators around there are second to none (I have no idea how they keep on top of everything so fast) and usually any edits will be fixed within minutes if they are incorrect. Controversial subjects can be here or there with info, but most of the solid facts (country facts, items, dates in history, etc. are very accurate since they usually come right for reputable sources (manufactures, encylopedias, etc.)

I like how wikipedia is simple and very readable, plus the same for everything. Makes it easy to find info quickly as you do not have to figure out a new website....just figure out the knowledge itself.

^True dat. for reg daily info wiki is awesome! But even the starter o Wiki doesn't suggest it's use for school or any important research.

RedHot wrote in post #4108005
You're assuming that was in on the wikipedia is even accurate since anyone can change any page any day!

I can get to the SLR camera/lens page in 5 seconds from the front page of www.canonusa.com it's very simple and in plain view. You want the correct info? Go to the manufacturer's site.

RedHot,
Well Canon has had many errors on there web page also and is corrected just like Wikipedia I remember when Canon was claiming a 35mm film camera had a CMOS sensor after 2+ weeks of it showing I e-mailed them letting them know of the error. They then corrected it and sent a thank you message
I also can't get to the camera/lens page in 5 sec with the address you give (at least not until I have bookmarked the specific address) its more like 25 sec after going through 5 pages to get to this address EOS (SLR) Camera Systems
which is "http://www.usa.canon.​com/consumer/controlle​r?act=ProductCatIndexA​ct&fcategoryid=111"
But there are many options, like you can search right here on the forum

Grentz wrote in post #4108169
I agree 100%. It is stupid when people act like you cannot believe anything on wikipedia...the moderators around there are second to none (I have no idea how they keep on top of everything so fast) and usually any edits will be fixed within minutes if they are incorrect. Controversial subjects can be here or there with info, but most of the solid facts (country facts, items, dates in history, etc. are very accurate since they usually come right for reputable sources (manufactures, encylopedias, etc.)

I like how wikipedia is simple and very readable, plus the same for everything. Makes it easy to find info quickly as you do not have to figure out a new website....just figure out the knowledge itself.

Some people feel threatened by Wikipedia. Some of these are the 'traditional' gatekeepers of information who are insecure about their power base and the democratization of information.. they spread FUD (Wiki it ) to discredit Wikipedia.

I find that even the traditional means of gathering information cannot be regarded as gospel. Peer reviewed or referenced or other literature can still have biases, even subtle ones. Gospel truth it is not. Anything can be 'cooked' if you find enough people to agree with it. Just because it has passed through the "system", academic or journaled or otherwise, does not make it bulletproof accurate.

What I find is that you have to read multiple independent sources (as far as reasonably possible of course) and derive your own conclusions based on your own experiences. I use Wiki and Google as a starting point. If I'm just reading for casual information then I might stop there, if is REALLY important then I will continue to find my own sources.

After a while you'll start to notice all the reputable sources are coming to similar conclusions. This is STILL not the absolute truth but it's highly likely that it is reasonably accurate.


Or maybe it's just my Internet BS Filter has gotten lots of practice