Talk:Canon EOS 450D

Redirects
Shouldn't there be redirects to this page from "Canon EOS Rebel XSi" and "Canon EOS Kiss X2"?--99.254.204.28 (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and create them. Gh5046 (talk) 06:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There are now :) -- ratarsed (talk) 07:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Flickr
What's the point of these links? The only net positive I can see is that it promotes a service – Flickr – which we're not supposed to do. hbdragon88 (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If a reader wants to expand their research on the camera, it provides an outlet. It also helps prevent sample pictures being uploaded by wikipedians and added to the article, which is a mess.
 * Wikipedia articles link to product reviews and comparisons quite frequently. This isn't much different.  Gh5046 (talk) 04:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, I opened a feature request with wikimedia a year ago to add a search feature that would support searching image meta/exif data. It was closed as a duplicate of a newer bug, and since hasn't made any headway.  This is the best thing I can think of to provide sample imagery to readers.  Gh5046 (talk) 04:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This link is pure FLICKR advertising, no more. There is nothing to add to the discussion from searching metadata of posted pictures and posting a link to ALL pictures on FLICKR that say they were took with the 450D/XSI.  It adds less than nothing, it detracts from the facts and legitemate content. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The metadata search request was for wikipedia or the wikimedia commons, not for flickr. Don't get that confused.
 * The flickr camera search results are based on the exif data of photos uploaded to their site. If a photo doesn't have exif data, it doesn't show up on the search.  These aren't photos that people claim have been taken by a specific camera, they have been taken by that camera.
 * It is legitimate. Flickr is one of the largest image hosting sites on the internet, and their camera search is open to the public.  The value it provides to the article is sample photos produced by a camera. What do cameras do?  They take photos, it adds value to an article to provide or link to sample photography.  Gh5046 (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no clue what you mean. So, the AK-47 article should include pictures of people shot with the AK-47?  An article about bricks should have pictures of a FLICKR search with all pictures taken of houses?  Really, I fail to see any value whatsoever in the addition of EVERY PICTURE on FLICKR ever taken with a camera of this type. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The AK-47 article has pictures of the weapon being fired, which is its intended purpose. The bricks article already has pictures of bricks, so a generic image search of brick houses would be superfluous.
 * You're saying there is no value in linking a resource that has a massive amount of verifiable sample imagery, taken by the camera the article is about? I completely disagree, and am dumbfounded as to why you feel that way.
 * Does anyone else want to chime in on this? I don't see this discussion getting any farther between Nukes4Tots and myself.  Gh5046 (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You've not even demonstrated your point let alone proven it. I'm glad your bowing out and accepting that your position is no longer defensible.  Your comparrisons are wrong.  Dead people are the result of the AK-47 being fired as pictures are the result of the Eos 450D being fired... I don't think I'm going out on a limb to suggest you work for FLICKR or otherwise have a vested interest in advertising their services. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't work for flickr. Don't be silly, and don't assume that I'm dropping this issue. I still feel there's nothing wrong with keeping the link in the article, it's quite the opposite, I believe it improves it.
 * You're twisting half of my words and ignoring the rest. That's why I'd like another person's view on the issue.  Gh5046 (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't SAY you worked for FLICKR, but that you might either work for them or have a vested interest in advertising their services because, frankly, your arguments ammount to, uh, here are about half a million (and growing) pictures taken by one of the most popular cameras on the market. Why don't you link to EBAY and say that you can buy the camera there? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 11:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I just added the flickr link again. I don't work for flickr and don't even have any 450D images that will show up in the link (not yet at least). The link is helpful because pictures are what the camera is meant for. Showing sample results is a good thing. AK-47's are not for bullet holes in people. Showing a link to all flickr photos tagged AK-47 might be acceptable, target scores and such. Even so, this is a different case. If anyone else has any more objections please state them again here. Thanks, Dictouray (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * WOW, once again, nobody SAID you worked for flickr, only that a link to hundreds of thousands of pictures is useless. It's coming out again, there is no consesnsus for inclusion. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, I don't mean to be rude. But what authority do you have to remove it? I'm not the kind of guy to start an edit war and get banned, but from my side your removal looks like vandalism. It's two against one at this point. I feel your edits both this year and last year were not called for, and that it isn't your place to remove it if someone puts it in, unless you can find a wikipedia rule stating it can't go in and get an admin to agree. Dictouray (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I just stumbled across this discussion... You are in parts repeating discussions on talk pages of other models: link search for flickr. My take: it's not an advertisement for flickr, but not really useful - the photos are too inconsistent because far too many different lenses and post processing methods are used (noise removal, tone mapping, ...), and often posted without EXIF data. The linked review sites have consistent and unprocessed shots where dynamic range, high ISO noise, etc. can be judged better. Rror (talk) 00:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

For future reference (a) the Flickr links were subsequently removed and (b) User:Nukes4Tots left the project mid-way through July 2009. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Free Canon XSI Guide
Would like to see the free canon xsi guide added as an additional resource link.24.30.124.92 (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The links have been removed by User:Winged Brick and me three times now, giving our reasons every time. This is clearly WP:LINKSPAM. All the different 'guides' are just constructed around Amazon referral links. And since this is your own site: please do not use Wikipedia to promote your own interests (WP:COI). Thanks. Rror (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)