Template talk:Nikon DSLR cameras

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Sources

Nikon D40: Entry Level: http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/26/nikons-entry-level-d40-dslr-reviewed/

Nikon D60: Entry Level: http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-9206-9245 Entry Level: http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/8924.html

Nikon D50: Entry Level: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D50/D50A.HTM Entry Level: http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Nikon-D50-Digital-Camera-Review-.htm

Nikon D300: Prosumer: http://www.digitalcamerareview.com/default.asp?newsID=3314&review=Nikon+D300

Nikon D200: Prosumer: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-D200-Prosumer-Must-Haves/lm/R258UA5JCH8CNS

Nikon D100: Prosumer: http://photo.net/nikon/d100/preview.html

Nikon D80: Consumer: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D80/D80A.HTM

Nikon D70: Amateur/Consumer: http://www.noendpress.com/pvachier/cameras/nikon_D70.php


Can I stop now? Thank you.. SyBerWoLff 03:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviews are not reliable sources. They are especially not reliable when they contradict the manufacturer (Nikon calls the D300 a "compact professional"). Cburnett (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Majority rule SyBerWoLff 03:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
You have no clue about wikipedia policies, do you? Majority rule does not make it reliable. Cburnett (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
If 99% of the photographic population calls it a prosumer camera, and the market calls it a prosumer camera.. I think it's a prosumer camera.... SyBerWoLff 03:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I repeat: majority rule does not make it a reliable source. Cburnett (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consumer and Prosumer

I think the terms "consumer" and "prosumer" are unclear. In reality the distinction between consumer and professional is a false one, since anyone who uses a camera as opposed to being a dealer or a reseller, is a consumer whether they are professional or not.

In the camera magazines that I have read, "prosumer" refers to high spec compact cameras, not a digital SLRs. If you google "Nikon Prosumer" for example you get hits for the Nikon P5000, which is a different class of camera entirely.

I would suggest replacing the terms "consumer" and "prosumer" with "enthusiast" and "mid-range".

--Molar999 04:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I have removed all such labels per WP:V since they are uncited. Cburnett (talk) 00:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Citations here. Next time attach the Template:Fact instead.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082313nikond300.asp, http://www.dpreview.com/news/0708/07082312nikond3.asp, http://www.dpreview.com/news/0703/07030602nikond40x.asp, http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06080903nikond80withpreview.asp, http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05021605nikon_d2hs.asp, http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04091605nikond2x.asp

Some list "enthusiast". The synonym "consumer" has been used for better consistency with the other templates. Tejastheory (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:V says you, as the restoring editor, must put the citations in the page. You have failed to do so. Cburnett (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't got the time to list all references at the moment. Just about every Nikon press release announcing the camera declares who the target market is, so if any other editor has the time they can add these references using the <ref>link here</ref>. If no one else gets around to it, I'll go ahead and do it myself in a few hours. Tejastheory (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Of the above links the ones for the D2Hs and D2Xs called them by a label, but I can't find any Nikon source calling the D40, D60, or D80 anything. Cburnett (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] D100 and D200

in this box tell, D100 n D200 is prosummer, but in above article D100 and D200 is professionals, how? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.129.186.11 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 21 March 2007, UTC.

The template seems o.k. to me. When you say "in above article" do you mean the Nikon D100 and Nikon D200 articles? In the D100 article it says "designed for professionals and advanced hobbyists" - isn't that what prosummer means? Designed for both professional and amateur (consumer) market? Also, please sign your talk page edits. Thank you. --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 02:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D40 and D40x

The D40 and D40 are both still being produced, with the 40x being a higher-quality version of the 40. I wanted to modify the template to reflect this, adding a second row to the "enthousiast" row starting from the D40x, but I don't know how to do that. Anyone? -- Yoe 19:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur here - but I can't do it either.
58.178.107.64 22:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree also. The D40 and D40x are both being produced and sold and are both aimed at the lowest tier of DSLR buyers.
--128.205.180.225 06:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I updated the table to reflect this. In the future if they entry-level line is consolidated into a single model again, rowspan="2" will be needed. Also, I wasn't able to make the row caption ("Entry-level DX sensor") into two rows, so maybe someone more familiar with wiki syntax can help. Tejastheory (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The D3 and D300 bodies

Nikon has somewhat changed (at least for now) the way in which its high end models are targeted at various market segments, which means that, at least for now, the old system of D2X/D2H/D200 doesn't really apply anymore.

The D3 is very much about high speed, low noise, and *low* pixel density - making it very much a D2H replacement, and nothing like a D2X, with its very high pixel density/resolving ability.

The high-res (densitywise) D300, on the other hand, is a serious step forward from both the D200, and in a way replaces the D2X too - so it could in fact be shown as superseding both models.

On the other hand - if Nikon were to release a full-frame, high pixel density "D3X" (or similar) - then it would fall nicely into the scheme once again. In any case, the D3 certainly cannot be seen, or act as a substitute for the D2X. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.74.250 (talk) 11:57, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] D3 as D2H(s) Replacement

The D300 is definitely a D200 replacement as all the features of the D200 are found in or surpassed by the D300. The D300 is not IMO a D2H(s) replacement as it has lower continous drive 6fps (d300) vs 8fps (D2H). I think the D3 is a replacement for D2Hs as everything from the D2Hs is improved or found in the D3 also it can't be called a high resoulution model because Nikon has had 12 megapixel sensor since q2 2004. And since it's a Full Frame i have renamed the category from "professional - High Resoulution & High Speed" to "professional - Full Frame - High Speed" Sorry if my train of thought is not that coherent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.26.193 (talk) 16:13, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

  • Your train of thought is plenty coherent, I just don't agree with it. Lens quality is only meaningful with a cirtain resolution. The 8mp digicams of today are esentialy upsampled 4mp images because the lenses on those Point and shoots just don't have the resolving power. Even with the best sharpest lenses you can buy, 21mp, like on the Cannon D1s mk 3, are a waste. The resolving power of those great lenses is about 14mp at optimum aperture with good lighting. So, even though 12mp sensors have been around awhile, there is no reason to keep upping a stat that isn't improving the camera. Also, it doesn't make much sense to have a FX format in a HS camera. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 22:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with the original unsigned poster. It is likely that Nikon will stop producing the DxH line of cameras although they have not officially announced it; I make this proposition because of the fact that the feature set of the D3 is a superset of the D2Hs feature set and unless I am incorrect (I'm by no means a professional photographer who uses either the D3 or the D2Hs) there are no compelling reasons to use a D2Hs over a D3. I also believe you are incorrect about your comment regarding megapixels and lens quality; you do not clearly define your hypothesis and I don't see how it is related to the issue at hand.--128.205.180.225 06:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • However, since I personally feel the DxH line will be discontinued in the future (with no successors made), that the rows in the table right now (with both the pro FX sensor and pro DX sensor) are just fine. As far as the listing goes, it is not a question of whether or not the D3 "replaces" the D2Hs, but of whether or not the D3 is the successor to the D2Hs in the same category. The fact is that the D3 is a new line of camera which simply supercedes the D2Hs in its feature set.--128.205.180.225 06:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
  • First let me say its a matter of debate. Ok... Sorry that I didn't make myself clear, I believe that the Nikon D3 supersedes both the Nikon D2Hs and the Nikon D2Xs based on the following observations and data.
  1. The camera incorporates a FX (135 film sized) sensor. This benefits people who want ultra-wide performance and the image quality associated with a FX sized sensor. The decreased pixel density helps high ISO performance but only because the pixel count is fairly low. A FX sensor hurts sports and nature shooters who need as much reach as possible. A 600mm lens on a DX is the same as a 900mm lens on an FX. It is common to see sports shooters with 600mm lenses on DX cameras. How do they get it on the D3??
  2. The D3 has good enough resolution. Lets be honest, the good professional studio shooters use medium format Phase one digital backs that hit 45mp's and the good professional landscape photographers use 4x5 inch view cameras. Not 35mm digital.
  3. Looking at the MTF curves of most lenses (including primes) they don't resolve over 14mps on a FX anyway. Whereas with a medium format camera or a large format, the area is much bigger and thus the resolving power doesn't need to be as high.
So, in conclusion. It serves the purposes of both sports shooters and photojournalists alike and also throws a bit in there for the rich hobbyist and some studio shooters. Thus surpassing both the D2Hs and D2Xs. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 23:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there needs to be some clarification on what exactly is being debated. I don't understand what either of you want the template to look like. Tejastheory (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I don't really mind the current layout. IMHO, (not that this need to be implemented) the D3 should continue where both the D2Xs and D2Hs left off. See, there is no need to have a new row every time a new feature is introduced. There are the flagship cameras, one or two. Then there is a semi-professional model, then there is the enthusiast, then the entry level cameras. Until another flagship camera is introduced (possibly at PMA in a week) I have to assume that the D3 is the flagship camera for Nikon. I don't know how to code the box and this is just one mans opinion. -Fcb981(talk:contribs) 04:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I see (although I'm not quite sure what's 128.205.180.225's idea is). I think an important thing to keep in mind is to take a camera's abilities into a contemporary context. The 12MP on the D3 makes it a superset of the D2X, sure. But this doesn't make it a "high resolution" model, anymore than the D300 can be called a high-res model. 12MP was very high resolution among contemporary cameras of 4 years ago when the D2X was first introduced, but it is pretty middle of the road today, given the 14, 16, and 21MP sensors from other competitors. Similarly, the D3 has a faster fps than the D2H, but the D300 has an equal fps as well, once the battery grip is attached. This doesn't mean they are direct D2H successors. I think the overall market needs to be looked at, and the D3 is an entirely different beast from either the D2X or D2H, and has many different applications, primarily because of its full-frame sensor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejastheory (talk • contribs) 06:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] D300 as D2x and D2Hs replacement

These categories seem a little silly. The D300 is a DX camera, just like the D2x and the D2Hs. It has a better sensor than either the D2Hs or the D2X. It shoots faster than the D2x and the same as the D2H (8fps). It is modular in that the grip must be added to achieve 8fps, but without the grip it will still do 6fps - faster than the D2x. The D300 autofocus module is improved over both the D2h and D2x. The high iso capability is greater in the D300. The body is professionally sealed against moisture and dust. The grip takes the same style high-capacity battery as the D2x and D2h.

Taking all this into account, the table should really be changed, as it could mislead a photographer into thinking the D300 is less camera than it actually is. Or conversely, the table could suggest that the D2x and D2h are more camera than they actually are.

Here in Canada, Nikon is marketing the D300 as a prosumer camera, but that is a marketing definition. Take a look at www.sportsshooter.com - there are many professional photographers upgrading from a D2h or D2x to a D300. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.31.13 (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think this needs some more discussion, if anyone else wants to talk about it. To me, the D300, if combined with the battery grip, is a superset of the D2Hs. It is a high speed sports camera, with both the top autofocus and D2H-like framerate (8fps). While the MSRP price range is the same as the D200 (I think?), it seems to me that the camera is aiming for a different market entirely - the high end professional sports market, where I would say the D300 rivals Canon's 1d series. My vote would to list D300 under DX sensor, hi speed. Tejastheory (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I still miss the E-series in this timeline? Wich were the first Nikon digital SLR's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.8.11 (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The D300 is clearly better than the D2'ish models, that doesn't mean its replacement of the professional D2 series. The D3 is the direct successor of the D2 series. The professional D3 is vastly better than the D300. The D300 is a entry-professional at most, and an awesome prosumer at worst. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.43.229 (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

According to Nikon they list it #4 after the D3, D2XS, & D2HS, which is the way it should be listed here. Cburnett (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting bug

On my browser (Firefox) there's a weird bug where the bottom right-half border on the D3 isn't showing up. Not quite familiar enough with the syntax to fix it. Tejastheory (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The rows for the D2XS and D2HS weren't fully created. Cburnett (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] An idea for the references

How about we put the references for the category names in <noinclude> tags so that they appear on the template page, but don't clutter up pages where it's transcluded? This way, the references will still be there to discourage edit warring over the category names, but won't take up space on pages for individual camera models. Cburnett, others, what do you think? A reasonable compromise or not? ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 03:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we just cite these things on the actual articles for each camera? That's the only place this template shows up anyway, so a reference will always be seen where ever the template shows up. And then it wouldn't clutter up the template. Tejastheory (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Neither idea will work to stop anyone. An anonymous user has removed the references and changed the categories back on this particular template 3 times in the last 5 days with no explanation. This has been my motivation all along: people obviously care more about their personal opinion than finding reliable sources which is blatantly a policy violation. Cburnett (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how anonymous IP edits are related to this issue. They're already changing it when you're putting the citations right on the template, so I don't really see hiding the references or putting them on the article pages making the problem any worse. Tejastheory (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
So your argument is...is that even though the references are being removed and categories/labels changed...we should remove the references from the template all-together so that even more people will change them at a whim because they're now unsourced in the template? Cburnett (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm saying your argument makes no sense. You're saying, "we're having X problem, if we make this change, it's not going to solve X problem!" which may very well be true. But neither of our proposals here are meant to deal with that problem, and they're not going to hurt it, because the problem you're so worried about is happening anyway! Either my idea or Moxfyre's is simply to remove the clutter caused by having citations. Tejastheory (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You want to put the citations in the articles, not in the template. Moxfyre wants to hide them on article pages via a noinclude. Either way you are asking for more users to get into the mindset of altering the categories because they're either not in the template (you) or hidden when in use (moxfyre). If there is a problem with an anonymous user with citations then removing or hiding them in the transcluded template can only serve to increase people changing the template at their discretion. Your "solutions" don't make anything better except your asthetics but at the higher risk of Tom, Dick, & Harry changing it because they don't see the citations right there. Cburnett (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
The point isn't just to stop people from carelessly changing the categories, it's to unclutter the pages that transclude the templates... without removing the visibility of the references to editors! ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 00:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Citations exist so people SEE THEM and you want to get rid of them (ok, hide them) because they are "clutter"?! Citations are not here just for editors but for everyone to see... You're defeating the entire purpose of citations — visibility — where visibility matters the most: when reading articles. Cburnett (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Those particular citations aren't really relevant to the actual articles in which they appear. They are citations concerning the naming of the camera categories, and don't have anything to do with the cameras themselves. That's why I consider them clutter when they are transcluded into individual camera pages. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 04:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
How about just this then - we base the categories on the prices of the cameras. I don't particularly think blindly pasting manufacturer's marketing terms is a good fit - if Nikon decided to advertise "The D40 is a great camera for entry-level users and professionals alike!", would it really make sense to label the camera "Entry-level/Professional"? Marketing buzzwords do not necessarily bear any relation to reality.
A very good point... marketing terms may be "well-referenced" in that they come from an authoritative source (the manufacturer) but they are otherwise quite arbitrary and subject to change. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 03:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Prices are at least fairly well-categorized and unambiguous. The Nikon D300 is "high end" APS-C. The D80 is "mid-range" APS-C. The D40 is "entry-level" or "low-end" APS-C. I think that produces an unambiguous classification (which is supposed to be better, the "Advanced Photo Enthusiast" or the "Prosumer"?), allows us to use a common classification across all SLR templates, and gets rid of duplicate labels just because a company decided to use the same marketing word (Canon 5D and 1ds sereis are both "professional full frame", for example). Tejastheory (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I didn't mind the subjective categories too much myself. Things like "Entry-level", "Prosumer", "Professional APS-C" vs. "Professional Full Frame", or "Entry-level Pentaprism" vs. "Entry-level Pentamirror." Though I do understand Cburnett's argument that this leads to unmaintainable and unverifiable edit-warring over the exact terms. *sigh*. I guess price is a decent stand-in though. Maybe we can convince DPReview.com to co-opt these timelines for their own site, thus making them an authoritative reference for the category labels? :-P ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 03:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I've went ahead and made those changes here. If there aren't any other objections, I'll (or some else can) convert the other templates in a few days. Tejastheory (talk) 07:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I wholly object to using prices by tying them to some "arbitrary" category. If you're going to categorize based on price THEN CHANGE THE CATEGORIES TO PRICE RANGES! Saying a $1500 camera is "prosumer" is just as unverifiable and original research as saying "camera X is prosumer". If all you can do is make up some relationship as some quasi-objective guideline then that just shows how weak your position is for using profession/prosumer/consumer as categorization. No one has, as of yet, risen to my challenge of finding a source other than an 3rd reviewer. If these terms are so abundant and well-known then you should be able to find source after source after source after source detailing such.
I truly do hate being a complete and utter jack ass about this but it's clear that verifiability is meaningless or, worse, passe to you, moxfyre, and syberwolff as well as the dozen plus anonymous folks who've modified these templates (excuse my inflammatory comment). I don't disagree with the usage of professional/prosumer/consumer as categorization but it is ABUNDANTLY clear that using them is wholly arbitrary and highly, highly subjective which is all the more reason to strike their usage from the templates or find some authoritative source for them (more authoritative than a manufacturer and more authoritative than Joe Schmoe for reviewing site X that does a review.
Honestly. Sit back and look at the situation here. None of you have risen to the challenge of finding a good source for these categories. No, seriously: think about it. If you can't find me some book on photography that spells these out then doesn't that show you that there's even more of a need to not use them? If you can't find me 30 books (exaggerating) then doesn't that signal to you that these are more subjective than you'd like to think? Come on, cut me some slack on being the jerk here. I'm getting tired of it. If you're attitude is "well, that Cburnett hasn't responded here in a while...so I'm right" then what the hell is the point? Syberwolff's argument is that the majority of randomly-selected reviewers say category X then he's got it right. Your argument now is "no one is disagreeing with me, so I'm right". I don't even want to begin to quote policies on why this is entirely the wrong approach to this situation. Verifiability, original research, not a democracy, etc. etc. Cburnett (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of the references has caught on with at least one person. *sniffle* Cburnett (talk) 03:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
"it's clear that verifiability is meaningless or, worse, passe to you, moxfyre, and syberwolff as well as the dozen plus anonymous folks who've modified these templates"
I've never suggested that verifiability is unimportant. What I have objected to is your notion of what constitutes verifiable sources for these categories. You consider books to be verifiable sources, marketing literature to be verifiable sources, and online photography reviews and web sites NOT to be verifiable sources. This doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. These products have lifetimes that are too short to get any serious treatment in books. And marketing literature is biased and constantly changing.
Who is trying to maintain continuity through all this? Why, the online photography sites are, by arriving at more-or-less consistent terminology and categorization for the products. (Photography magazines have done this too... would you consider them to be reliable source?) Magazines and online reviews have become the authoritative sources for information on these products.
As I've said before, Cburnett, I understand your concern for the issue of verifiable information and appreciate your insistence on it. I just think that you've been, well, too pedantic and inflexible when it comes to accepting reliable sources for this information. ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 04:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Please understand the underpinning concept of verfiability which is reliability. Right there on WP:V, second sentence: "...by a reliable source."
Syberwolff linked to robgalbraith.com and infosyncworld.com. The former is a freakin blog and the latter is a one paragraph summary that spouts "entry-level" with no rhyme nor reason behind it. The others: engadget.com = one paragraph; digitalcamerareview.com = review by what seems to be a forum member; amazon.com = a random user's two sentence sound bite; ... I don't care to click the rest. It's clear that he was just googleing around to find ANYTHING to back up his position with complete disregard for source reliability.
I chose manufacturers' press releases because they are reliable and verifiable. MUCH more reliable than an amazon list. Seriously, an amazon list. I've maintained all along that I'd be fine with dumping press releases for something better but nothing of syberwolff's that I clicked through compares. The manufacturer's have the distinct advantage of discussing their own products which puts them first-in-line for authoritative. Any biases are clear to anyone clicking the link. Cburnett (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Cburnett, I don't know why you keep harping on "prosumer" and "professional". I agree those terms are fairly ambiguous, and not standardized. That's why I've labeled them as high-end, midrange, etc. which describe price, which is very verifiable and not open to interpretation. Tejastheory (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way of categorizing them that could hold 50 years from now? Xavexgoem (talk) 14:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I think, given past history, any of the current options (high-end, midrange, entry-level by price, or pro, prosumer, consumer by capability) are likely to hold for the next 5 or even 10 years. Given that digital cameras, like a lot of consumer electronics, is still a relatively new technology, I think it'd be nearly impossible to predict any of the changes that may come in 50 years (example: would anyone imagine a thing as digital cameras in 1958?) Tejastheory (talk) 20:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


Why not just put the price ranges in directly? Why hide behind terms when you're really using numbers? I think you could do pretty well to classify them as <$1000, $1000 to $2000 and >$2000 (I arbitrarily picked). It would be completely clear to anyone reading the template why their are grouped as they are and, to top it off, the verifiability goes through the roof.
However, this immediately raises a few questions. Street vs. MSRP? What do you do with cameras that drop in price? The original Canon D. Rebel was pretty much the same street price as the 40D is now but they are clearly not in the same class. That considered then how do you handle cameras in the same line (10d, 20d, 30d, 40d) that have different price breaks? Why $1000 instead of $800?
Better yet how about a single image with "Cost ->" (rotated 90 degrees CCW) thus achieving some method of sorting as well as being invariant to today's prices. Cburnett (talk) 01:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't really have a problem with prices, except that they're going to change. The price of the Rebel, for example, has gone from starting at $1000 down to $800 for the XSi. In 10 years, inflation may mean these go back up over $1000 - so it's susceptible to a lot of external factors that have a reasonable probability of changing in the next few years. That's why I think price classifications work best - no matter what the actual numbers are, the current model in the D40 series will be the cheapest (thus "entry-level"), the D80 series will be in the middle (thus "midrange"), and the D300 series will be the most expensive (thus "high end").
The cost thing could work, I suppose, but I think it just adds another layer of complexity that forces a reader to interpret a graph when words can just state the information explicitly. It sounds reasonable though - anyone else have thoughts? Tejastheory (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
And some people still change it. I think they flaw in your methodology has been revealed: "entry-level", "mid-range", and "high-end" are being interpreted as "consumer", "prosumer" and "professional" because you have no explanation as to what they mean. You aren't defining them anywhere. So people what they want and we're back to square one.
It would seem the only amicable solution is to strike them all outright. Does categorizing them give you much of any help navigating or is it there to inform? I find it much more informative that navigational and considering the utter headache and hours of wasted time I don't think they warrant their space. Doing so would make the templates basically a product time line with different product lines. Cburnett (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
And another... Cburnett (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Well the issue here is mostly anonymous IP's who make unilateral changes without being willing to discuss them, so I think the problem here amounts more to vandalism than anything. So it isn't about the current content - whether you have "prosumer" or "midrange" or removed them altogether, you would still have these same people editing the pages unilaterally without discussion. Tejastheory (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal?

I notice that syberwolff has requested mediation here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-31 Nikon DSLR cameras

I'm not too familiar with these sorts of things, but I'm wondering if third parties are allowed to contribute to the discussion? Because it would seem to be limiting if a mediation decision was made based on discussion limited to just two people. Tejastheory (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tejastheory, yes third parties are welcome to contribute to the discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Is mediation still required? Geoff Plourde (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)