Talk:Canon EOS 350D

message: I find example images that are taken with [insert camera model] are irrelevant in wikipedia articles, since these tell us nothing of the camera but rather the talent (or lack of talent) of the person that took the photo in question. Would it not be more fitting to put such images in a commons category (like Nikon D70 images), then anyone could find example images without cluttering the article about the tool that was used. The entire process would probably be even easier should someone make an external application á la Interiot's user contributions counter that would wade through embedded EXIF data. Scoo 12:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think people (myself included) find some example images useful.  This does not mean there can't be a gallery elsewhere as well. Johntex\talk 16:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: If anything they tell use more about the lens used than the camera.Reub2000 23:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's beyond the scope of Wikipedia to be a source of sample images for digital cameras. There are enough other websites for that kind of thing, like Dpreview.--Thomas Ploeger 21:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Swapped gallery for link to flickr.com which has more than 8 million photos taken with said camera. Scoo 20:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If that's a unique or odd feature/problem with a camera, then maybe a demonstration of said unique/odd feature/problem would be necessary.  However, considering the Rebel XT performs like an SLR, just like the XTi, XSi, D40, D60, D80, 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, etc, simply taking pictures with it for such use is beyond the scope of Wiki, because the same picture could, conceivably, be taken by any number of cameras and be practically indistinguishable and it's not demonstrating any specific feature of the camera (beyond the ability to take a picture) that is definable in any significant way.  If you want to scrutinize the pictures (and quality) of the camera, you're better off just hitting one of the MANY camera review sites out there.Kakomu (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image examples

message: The current image used in the infobox is that of the 350D with a 3rd-party lens. Maybe it's better to show the camera with the lens that is sold with the camera in the kit? --Thomas Ploeger 21:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image used in infobox 

message: I'm curious what is ment with "The range was initially announced in February 2005". It's the second sentence of the first paragraph. The camera was announced in February 2005, but the range of EOS digital SLR's existed before that.--Thomas Ploeger 21:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The range 

message: It seems to me to be a flash photograph, so the 1/200 sec shutter speed (.005 sec = 5 millisec) would be the synchronization speed for flash photos.  A 1/200 second image would be blurred for motion so large relative to the frame.  The actual duration of the electronic flash, which would be severely quenched for the closeup, would be 1/10,000 sec or less.  I'm sure of my analysis, so though I could be wrong I think it should be relabeled. Hu 04:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 5 Millisecond Coffee Blob picture 

message: :It is possible to bend the male pins of the Compact Flash connector inside the camera. This is an expensive repair which Canon does not offer under warranty. It can happen relatively easily but can be avoided by carefully inserting a new card and feeling for unusual resistance; excessive force is the primary cause but may also be due to the contact surface design of some CF cards. The problem is more of a design issue of the CF card mechanism and can happen in other CF equipped devices. On all Canon DSLRs, the written side of the CF card faces towards the front during insertion.
This sounds like a problem careless people are gonna have with any device. Can anyone show that this problem is more pervasive with the Digital Rebel XT than with other CF-using cameras? ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 00:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well such a statement should have a reference. And if someone added it based on there own thought, then it was in violation of the No original research policy. So if you want to, you can delete it. Nebrot (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I still have a 300D. I've been meaning to dig up the warranty and see if it says anything about this, but I keep forgetting. It would of course be more helpful for someone who has a 350D to tell us if the warranty does specifically say this or if it just blankets any damage caused by careless operation. ShutterBugTrekker (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for taking so long, but I scanned the warranty card, and uploaded it here. As you can see, it is a blanket statement. It refers to voiding warranty, if one does not follow proper operation procedures mentioned in manual. In the manual there are some warnings on page 9. It does mention to not subject the card to excessive force, but not say anything directly about bent pins. On page 26 there is a warning, that if CF-card is inserted the "wrong way", you can damage camera. It could be discerned by the information on these two pages, that by bending pins, you could void the warranty.... It's really a coin toss. Nebrot (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need this paragraph? 

message: What the hell is a paragraph on infrared photography doing in this article? Any digital camera ever made is capable of infrared photography "with a visible light blocking filter", even your compact camera. There is NOTHING special about this camera in terms of IR work so it doesnt make sense for this section to be included on this specific camera.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isaactret (talk • contribs) 19:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  There is a parent article on Infrared Photography and therefore, this section should be removed entirely from the Eos 350D page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.248.24.164 (talk) 13:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree. This camera is no more significant than any other camera when it comes to IR photography. I would maybe have an objection to deleting this section, if there was a reference stating that the 350D had some feature, or uniqueness, that made it better at IR. But this is not the case. So it looks like there is consensus on this. I will delete this section immediately. Nebrot (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infrared Photography 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Canon EOS 350D. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100603114220/http://www.canon.com:80/camera-museum/camera/dslr/data/2005-2009/2005_eos-kiss_dn.html? to http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/dslr/data/2005-2009/2005_eos-kiss_dn.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified