Talk:Canon EF

Jump to: navigation, search
This is the discussion page for Canon EF. Click here to start a new topic.

Discussion pages are for discussing improvements to the article itself, not for discussions about the subject of the article.

Picture commented out

The picture has been commented out because:

  1. it is not linked back to the corresponding Flickr page
  2. it is apparently not in Flickr's camerapedia pool
  3. it was added by an anonymous IP who had troublesome behaviour.

--Rebollo fr 15:00, 10 October 2006 (EDT)

Opening sentence

"The Canon EF, introduced in 1973, is the first and last of its kind." This is a much-repeated comment, wherever the EF is being reviewed, and one that has always niggled me. What 'kind' are we talking about? If it's the fact that this was the only Canon camera to have a non-Canon-built shutter, well, that meaning isn't really clear. It wasn't unique in having the Copal Square shutter (I believe the EL had the same, as did the 1970-ish Ricoh TLS401 sitting a few yards away from me). When I think of the EF (and I do ... having owned three of these beauties) I think of 'its kind' as including the Nikkormat EL/ELW and Pentax ES/ESII ... i.e. high quality, electromechanical, auto-exposure cameras from a major manufacturer.

Does anyone know what is really meant by this phrase, AND feel that it should be retired, with lazy reviewers being banned from ever using it again?

Ozalba (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2013 (PDT)

It seems likely that the sentence has degraded from text originally parroted from the Canon Camera Museum's description of the EF: This camera's main feature was the first and last of its kind. It was the Copal Square, a vertical-travel, metal-curtain, focal-plane shutter. I would interpret that as meaning that the Copal Square shutter was unique; however, they may mean only that Canon didn't use that shutter again in another model.
I guess an earlier writer copied the sentence from the Canon site, and someone else edited it to make a sentence about the camera, not knowing where the text had come from. If you can come up with a better start, go for it; you're well-placed to do so, as a user of the camera. I agree that we should produce original text wherever possible, rather than say what has already been said everywhere else. Cheers! --Dustin McAmera (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2013 (PDT)