Talk:Canon EOS R

Resolution

Why 30.1 megapixel?! Every source talking about 30.3. What is the thing, which I don't know? Runner1616 (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The data sheet says that the sensor has a resolution of 30.3 MP, that's true, however it also says that the delivered resolution in the image files (the so-called "pixels recorded") is only 30.1 MP. This issue can be resolved by also mentioning the delivered resolution in the info box. ʘχ (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for answer. Runner1616 (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2018 (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 R/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Viriditas (talk · contribs) 22:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Preliminary observations

• Lead doesn't meet GA criteria
• References indicate that the article may be out of date
• Article doesn't say the camera was discontinued in 2023
• General gallery sections for GA-level articles are considered frowned upon, however, there are alternate ways to use them within subsections that I favor
• Instead of quick failing, I am curious if nominator has time to work on this

@Bobulous: If you don't have time to work on this, let me know. Given that you have made a total of 50 edits within the last two years, and ten edits in all of 2024, I am curious as to your answer. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Viriditas.

Yes, I'll have time to work on improving the article in the evenings (and weekend) this week.

In response to your preliminary observations:

1. Is the lead too long, or is it missing something vital? Should I create a "Name" section to home the paragraph about the reason for the "R" in the name?

Please review Wikipedia:Good article criteria, particularly 1b, WP:LEAD: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". Do you think the current lead does this? Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

2. Can you elaborate on how the references indicate that the article is out of date?

I can, but the preliminary observation is that there are no recent sources in the article, particularly those from the last several years. For example, Canon corporate and local, regional retailers no longer carry it as of 2023. It is said that it was quietly discontinued as of November 2022, but sources are hard to come by. Apparently there is at least one source that is official, with Canon saying the R8 is its replacement. I think a good article needs to be comprehensive at a very basic level, not like a featured article, but with simple facts about the topic. I would say that the discontinuing of the product line and its replacement are basic facts, albeit difficult to source. Some effort should be made to add this to the article. This would mean searching newer, more up to date sources. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

3. This model is still on sale in plenty of stores, and there does seem to be some confusion as to whether or not it is still being manufactured. But I can add a section about this, with suitable references to support each claim.

Not sure that is true. If stores are selling it, they are selling backstock inventory, and this is a very common occurrence because warehouses are full of these products and those need to be sold off. In the industry, this is called "selling excess inventory". Companies often do this very quietly at first, and then make a barely seen announcement. It can take a year or more for all the inventory to be sold off. That appears to be the case here. An alternative explanation that you may want to pursue, is that only certain regions have had the product discontinued while it is still being manufactured elsewhere. Honda does this with their cars quite often, for example. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

4. Would you recommend removing the gallery altogether, and maybe moving one or two of the images in amongst the text if it seems appropriate?

I'm sympathetic to galleries, so I wouldn't do anything just yet, but I think best practice for good articles is to at least find a section where it is appropriate. I think you can still use the gallery template, but you won't need the subheading. For an example of how I did this myself, see Lise with a Parasol. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Let me know if you've spotted anything else that needs improving.

Bob (talk) 15:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Will do, but I think I've given you quite a bit to get started. Viriditas (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I've reworked the lead, created a new "Name" section, and a new "Discontinuation" section (including a mention of the R8 being considered a replacement by some), moved most of the gallery images up into suitable areas of the article, and scrapped the "Gallery" section header (swapping a caption into its place, and centring the gallery layout, as seen in your "Lise with a Parasol" page).

The lead now covers the announcement, launch, discontinuation, product type, and notability (it being the very first embodiment of Canon's new EOS R and RF lens mount systems). If you think it's still missing something, let me know your thoughts.

@Viriditas (edited to trigger ping) Bob (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

First, let me say, thank you for your efforts at trying to improve this article. I think you are well on the way to the GA, but not quite there just yet. If you look at WP:LEAD and then at this article, there's still a bit more to do. The easiest way to approach this is to open a text file, and start a bullet list. After each bullet, summarize the main point or points from each section. So roughly, your text file list should have at the minimum, seven bullet points, but likely many more than that. That will give you a basic foundation as to how to proceed with expanding the lead. The first thing that caught my eye, is that the lead says nothing about how one variant of the camera was designed and marketed for astrophotography. That's a pretty significant aspect of the product. So take a look at your body and see if you can expand the lead. Please also take a moment to read other good articles about similar topics and look at how they write lead sections to get some ideas. Viriditas (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Viriditas.

I've completely reworked the lead, moving out references (and creating a new section for the announcement/release) and summarising all of the major points of the article as a whole. I've made changes based on your feedback about the other sections too.

Let me know if you see something which still needs further work. Bob (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bobulous: Great job! Aside from the oversized lead, which might require some trimming to match the overall scope and length, I think we're almost done here. I will attempt a final review in 12 hours or so from now. Thanks for your hard work. Viriditas (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas I've put the lead on a diet, reducing the level of detail and simplifying sentences. Let me know if you think it's still too hefty. Bob (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bobulous: In the lead, you say the camera "was announced weeks after Nikon's first full-frame MILC, and years after Sony's first", but can you specify and link to those camera models? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed it, but I do note that it previously said it was announced "weeks" before the Nikon instead of the days it says in the body. Please check this is correct. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Viriditas.

I began editing the lead to make these requested changes, then realised that you were editing the article at the same time. So I'll stand down for now, and check back tomorrow to find out whether there are any outstanding changes you'd like me to make. Bob (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bobulous:I think the outstanding problem is whether or not the camera has been officially discontinued or not and by what time. The sources show it happened in late 2022, but this is difficult to confirm. Viriditas (talk) 23:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

You write "By March 2024 the EOS R is labelled "discontinued" on many of Canon's worldwide websites". That's helpful, but I wonder if there is a way to word this better, because using March 2024 as a fixed date is only relative to the date of editing, and we need to come up something independent of Wikipedia. Perhaps just removing the date itself is the best way forward. Viriditas (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Viriditas.

I agree with your earlier assessment: Canon have not officially announced the model as discontinued (presumably because they don't want to hurt sales of the existing stock which is still sitting with retailers) so any reports of production being ceased are based on rumour sites, which are based on word from anonymous figures with some degree of sight into the supply lines. I don't think we're ever going to be able to put a firm date on this (and I think both of us have spent a fair amount of effort hunting for reliable sources), so I agree that simply avoiding mention of a specific date is likely the best option.

I've made adjustments to the "Discontinuation" section. Let me know if you think more is needed. Bob (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bobulous: I think the answers to these and other questions might be found in the interwiki language pages. Have you had a chance to review them? For example, the Russian wiki page on this topic says "In September 2021, the Canon EOS Ra was discontinued."[1] This claim is sourced to CanonRumors and Jaron Schneider of PetaPixel who writes "the EOS Ra is no longer available directly from Canon and is listed as discontinued by other nationwide dealers or is "no longer available".[2] So, I think we have our date. Viriditas (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Lead

Some things to focus on:

• Summarize the main aspects of the article per WP:LEAD

• What differentiates this camera from its predecessors? What do its successors offer as an improved or updated feature?
• Astrophotography
• Reception

• Although not strictly required, it is generally recommended that Good Articles should cite their sources in the body while summarizing the material in the lead without citing sources in a redundant manner. In other words, make sure the lead is summarizing what is already in the body, and if so, there is no need to include sources in the lead, in most cases (there are exceptions). I should note, I was a bit lazy about requiring this in my last review, and I was criticized by another editor for letting it slide (rightly so, I might add). I'm hoping to make up for my laziness here. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Features

Manual focus

• Canon RF lenses use a focus-by-wire system, which allows the Canon EOS R to be configured to alter the direction and rate of focus change when turning the focusing ring on a Canon RF lens,[22] and also to show a focus distance scale in the viewfinder while using an RF lens.[23]

• Try to split this into two separate sentences. Viriditas (talk) 20:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas, that's done. Bob (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Flexible Priority mode

• The Canon EOS R introduces a new exposure mode called "Flexible Priority Exposure Mode" or "Fv Mode".[7][25][14][19]

• @Bobulous: Any idea why this sentence needs four citations? Could one suffice? Viriditas (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas, no, they all confirm virtually the same thing, so I've picked just one of them and dropped the rest. Bob (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you take a quick look to see if you can do the same elsewhere in the article? Viriditas (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

See for example: The EOS R includes a two-axis (roll and pitch) electronic level display which can optionally be overlaid into the viewfinder or LCD displays,[5][19][20] but is not available when using face or eye detection mode,[5][19][20] Viriditas (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, @Viriditas.

I've moved to a single reference for uncontroversial, objective statements. For some statements which might be disputed (such as the announcement date) or which require information from more than one reference to fully support the claim (such as in the battery charging statement) or which are subjective (such as the critiques in the "Reception" section) I've left more than one reference in support.

Let me know what you think. Bob (talk) 19:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. Keep in mind, you can also bundle refs using bullets, such that only one citation appears inline, but in the reference section, multiple appear. Only if you need to do so, of course. Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Accessories

• or the newer LP-E6NH battery

• Not sure we should be using "newer" here, as that is somewhat relative to the time it was originally written. Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Reception

• After the announcement of the Canon EOS R, the absence of certain features led to a lot of criticism, often heated, in online forums...

• @Bobulous: Does a reliable source say this or is this your summary and interpretation of the criticism? Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas, this statement is largely based on the first paragraph of the this article which says of the online feedback: "a lot of it hells-bells-all-out rage", and on the first paragraph of this article which says "dozens of videos posted on YouTube by “experts” focused on “flaws” of various nature, both hardware and software".

If you think the statement is too strong, or is not supported by the references, let me know and I'll adjust it. Bob (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That's fine. Just checking. Viriditas (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Discontinuation

• Sources reported, in 2021, 2022 and 2023, on rumours that Canon had discontinued production of the EOS R. As of March 2024, some sections of Canon websites place the EOS R into the "discontinued" category, though there doesn't appear to have been a formal announcement made by Canon. The EOS R will be eligible for repair by Canon until November 2029.

• I would prefer to see us go past rumours and into the confirmation stage, if that is at all possible. Also, see MOS:CONTRACTIONS and remove "doesn't". Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Canon UK says the EOS R is officially discontinued.[3][4] Not sure if this means just for the UK. Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Listed as discontinued on a US retail site.[5] Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Canon Hong Kong says the EOS R is officially discontinued.[6] Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Canon Thailand lists the EOS R as discontinued.[7] Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Canon US has removed all product from their website. Viriditas (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
• Another site says Canon doesn't usually issue official discontinued notices, so it is left to consumers, prosumers, and hobbyists to figure it out. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Images

• I believe recent edits have met the image use criteria. Note, other editors and reviewers have different styles and approaches, so don't be surprised if someone objects to this kind of gallery. It might be wise to be proactive about this and post a very short justification on the main talk page explaining how it helps the reception section. That way, if someone does come around to oppose it or just remove it altogether, you will have already addressed the problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Caption

• A Canon EF lens mounted to the EOS R thanks to a Mount Adapter EF-EOS R

• "Thanks to" sounds odd to me. It may be that I'm not all that familiar with this usage, but consider rephrasing. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Lead section needs work. See comments above.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Concern that some information is out of date due to use of older sources. See discussion up above.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Major aspects not entirely represented. See comments above.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   See comments about incorporating gallery into topical subsection(s) up above.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Everything checks out, but I recommend reading what I wrote here about considering the 2021 discontinuation date for the body and lead. It's up to you, of course, how you decide to do it. Good work. Viriditas (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2024 (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.