Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Image:Canon EOS 40D and 85mmf1.8.jpg

Canon EOS 40D with Canon 85mm f/1.8

Reason: Probably my best studio shot yet (lighting provided by my new MT-24EX), this 3 shot focus bracket has excellent technical quality and enc value as well. Hopefully Canon will fare better than Nikon ;)
Articles this image appears in: Canon EOS 40D, Digital single-lens reflex camera and Photography
Creator: Fir0002

Support as nominator Fir0002 01:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original, ~~weak oppose~~ neutral alternate 1 - It is nothing more than a reasonably well taken photograph of an every day object. There is nothing special or eyecatching about it. TheOtherSiguy (talk) 02:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia is primarily concerned with informing people. Hence, images such as this, have a valid position as an FP (IMO). Images such as the Antelope Canyon one below are pretty, but they are no more valuable than this (and no harder to take). Studio shots like this, are deceptively difficult to take. Take for example the image on the 40D article my shot replaced: Image:Canon EOS 40D img 1325.jpg - it has white balance issues, poor DOF, and very poor lighting. The value in these shots is similar to the value of FP's of static 24/7 365 days a year buildings like this (and indeed most of Diliff's impressive portfolio) - it has been executed extremely well. --Fir0002 05:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What there's reflected in the lens is very uneloquent. —αἰτίας •discussion• 02:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can I request Aitias that you become a little less cryptic in your comments. "Ineloquent: Not eloquent, Eloquent: having or exercising the power of fluent, forceful, and appropriate speech: an eloquent orator." - dictionary.com --Fir0002 05:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Janke wrote below, not everybody is a native English speaker. So it would be very nice, if you were not so arrogant. This dictionary said me that uneloquent is the correct word. If that's false, I'm very sorry. But the point is, that your picture is insufficient for FP. I hope I was able to find the correct word. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Alternative 1 - meets all the criteria.--Svetovid (talk) 10:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both Its too dark in the bottom front corners Furmanj (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/30d/images/30d-950.jpg (copyrighted image). Quality issues aside, its a more encyclopedic image, albeit less dramatic

Oppose. Indeed, reflections in lens are quite unsightly. (I think that's the gist in Aitias' comment - we aren't all English speakers, you know...) Also, reflection of camera on tabletop is distracting. A FP of a subject like this needs to be perfect. --Janke | Talk 18:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh really? That's quite interesting because I went to some length to get those reflections (both in the lens and on the white surface)! I thought they were a nice touch --Fir0002 21:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats what I wanted to say, thanks. —αἰτίας •discussion• 21:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the original - Support Alternative 1, which I think looks far better than the original Booksworm ^{Sprechen-sie Koala?} 10:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original, Support alternative 1, more interesting angle, and I like the reflections in this version much better. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 13:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both I don't think the reflection on the table-top or whatever it is, is appealing and the lens reflections arn't that nice as well. -Fcb981^{(talk:contribs)} 15:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Oh what the heck. Because it's a nice shot, very good focus, obvious attention to detail. No technical flaws. The lens is distracting, but Fir doesn't control the effects of glass on light, there's nothing that can be done about that. My only issue is the weird light effect on the very top of the camera.. not that big of a deal --⁪ffroth 04:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak support While technically brilliant, I do not know if it is very encyclopedic. Of course, it is possible that some on Wikipedia (as it is an international entity) are not familiar with cameras. --Shark face 217 23:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 02:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]