User talk:Dennis Bratland/RfC on shopping guides

RfC on shopping guides

What are examples of article content that meets the definition of a sales catalogue or price comparison service as described in WP:NOTCATALOG?

Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers.

Explanation

The goal here is to see if there is broad consensus across many subject areas as to which specific examples of comparisons of products price, availability, features, performance, or sales are well outside the scope of what is encyclopedic, which are gray areas to be left to case-by-case editorial discretion, and which could be called good, the kind of content we would encourage.

Below are a number of diffs and quotes of content lettered A, B, C, etc. Please broadly categorize each example as:

• Good Most or all of this content is encyclopedic. Should be encouraged, other articles should follow this example. An article this topic that lacked this type of content would be better if it were added.
• Meh Should be left to case-by-case editorial discretion, or can't be determined based on this example alone.
• NOT Most or all of this example is out of scope. Should be either deleted or significantly reduced and rewritten. The presence of of this content makes an article on this topic worse

Please ignore any solvable issues of completeness, appearance, formatting, typos, verifiability, neutrality, organization, cleanup, or tone. Focus primarily on the type of information and the context, e.g. a side-by-side comparison of data.

Feel free to add examples if you feel those given are insufficient.

Examples

Example A

Digital single-lens reflex camera#DSLRs compared with other digital cameras DSLRs compared with other digital cameras The reflex design scheme is the primary difference between a DSLR and other digital cameras. In the reflex design scheme, the image captured on the camera's sensor is also the image that is seen through the view finder. Light travels through a single lens and a mirror is used to reflect a portion of that light through the view finder – hence the name Single Lens Reflex. While there are variations among point-and-shoot cameras, the typical design exposes the sensor constantly to the light projected by the lens, allowing the camera's screen to be used as an electronic viewfinder. However, LCDs can be difficult to see in very bright sunlight. Compared with some low cost cameras that provide an optical viewfinder that uses a small auxiliary lens, the DSLR design has the advantage of being parallax-free: it never provides an off-axis view. A disadvantage of the DSLR optical viewfinder system is that when it is used, it prevents using the LCD for viewing and composing the picture. Some people prefer to compose pictures on the display – for them this has become the de facto way to use a camera. Depending on the viewing position of the reflex mirror (down or up), the light from the scene can only reach either the viewfinder or the sensor. Therefore, many early DSLRs did not provide "live preview" (i.e., focusing, framing, and depth-of-field preview using the display), a facility that is always available on digicams. Today most DSLRs can alternate between live view and viewing through an optical viewfinder. Optical view image and digitally created image The larger, advanced digital cameras offer a non-optical electronic through-the-lens (TTL) view, via an eye-level electronic viewfinder (EVF) in addition to the rear LCD. The difference in view compared with a DSLR is that the EVF shows a digitally created image, whereas the viewfinder in a DSLR shows an actual optical image via the reflex viewing system. An EVF image has lag time (that is, it reacts with a delay to view changes) and has a lower resolution than an optical viewfinder but achieves parallax-free viewing using less bulk and mechanical complexity than a DSLR with its reflex viewing system. Optical viewfinders tend to be more comfortable and efficient, especially for action photography and in low-light conditions. Compared with digital cameras with LCD electronic viewfinders, there is no time lag in the image: it is always correct as it is being "updated" at the speed of light. This is important for action or sports photography, or any other situation where the subject or the camera is moving quickly. Furthermore, the "resolution" of the viewed image is much better than that provided by an LCD or an electronic viewfinder, which can be important if manual focusing is desired for precise focusing, as would be the case in macro photography and "micro-photography" (with a microscope). An optical viewfinder may also cause less eye-strain. However, electronic viewfinders may provide a brighter display in low light situations, as the picture can be electronically amplified. Performance differences DSLR cameras often have image sensors of much larger size and often higher quality, offering lower noise, which is useful in low light. Although mirrorless digital cameras with APS-C and full frame sensors exist, most full frame and medium format sized image sensors are still seen in DSLR designs. For a long time, DSLRs offered faster and more responsive performance, with less shutter lag, faster autofocus systems, and higher frame rates. Around 2016-17, specific mirrorless camera models started offering competitive or superior specifications in these aspects. The downside of these cameras being that they do not have an optical viewfinder, making it difficult to focus on moving subjects or in situations where a fast burst mode would be beneficial. Other digital cameras were once significantly slower in image capture (time measured from pressing the shutter release to the writing of the digital image to the storage medium) than DSLR cameras, but this situation is changing with the introduction of faster capture memory cards and faster in-camera processing chips. Still, compact digital cameras are not suited for action, wildlife, sports and other photography requiring a high burst rate (frames per second). Simple point-and-shoot cameras rely almost exclusively on their built-in automation and machine intelligence for capturing images under a variety of situations and offer no manual control over their functions, a trait which makes them unsuitable for use by professionals, enthusiasts and proficient consumers (aka "prosumers"). Bridge cameras provide some degree of manual control over the camera's shooting modes, and some even have hotshoes and the option to attach lens accessories such as filters and secondary converters. DSLRs typically provide the photographer with full control over all the important parameters of photography and have the option to attach additional accessories including hot shoe-mounted flash units, battery grips for additional power and hand positions, external light meters, and remote controls. DSLRs typically also have fully automatic shooting modes. DSLRs have a larger focal length for the same field of view, which allows creative use of depth of field effects.However, small digital cameras can focus better on closer objects than typical DSLR lenses. Sensor size The sensors used in current DSLRs ("Full-frame" which is the same size as 35 mm film (135 film, image format 24×36 mm), APS-C sized, which is approximately 22×15 mm, and Four Thirds System) are typically much larger than the sensors found in other types of digital cameras. Entry-level compact cameras typically use sensors known as 1/2.5″, which is 3% the size of a full frame sensor. There are bridge cameras (also known as premium compact cameras or enthusiast point-and-shoot cameras) that offer sensors larger than 1/2.5″ but most still fall short of the larger sizes widely found on DSLR. Examples include the Sigma DP1, which uses a Foveon X3 sensor; the Leica X1; the Canon PowerShot G1 X, which uses a 1.5″ (18.7×14 mm) sensor that is slightly larger than the Four Thirds standard and is 30% of a full-frame sensor; the Nikon Coolpix A, which uses an APS-C sensor of the same size as those found in the company's DX-format DSLRs; and two models from Sony, the RX100 with a 1″-type (13.2×8.8 mm) sensor with about half the area of Four Thirds and the full-frame Sony RX1. These premium compacts are often comparable to entry-level DSLRs in price, with the smaller size and weight being a tradeoff for the smaller sensor. Type Four Thirds Sigma Foveon X3 Canon APS-C Sony · Pentax · Sigma · Samsung APS-C / Nikon DX Canon APS-H 35 mm Full-frame / Nikon FX Leica S2 Pentax 645D Phase One P 65+ Diagonal (mm) 21.6 24.9 26.7 28.2–28.4 33.5 43.2–43.3 54 55 67.4 Width (mm) 17.3 20.7 22.2 23.6–23.7 27.9 36 45 44 53.9 Height (mm) 13.0 13.8 14.8 15.6 18.6 23.9–24 30 33 40.4 Area (mm2) 225 286 329 368–370 519 860–864 1350 1452 2178 Crop factor 2.00 1.74 1.62 1.52–1.54 1.29 1.0 0.8 0.78 0.64 Fixed or interchangeable lenses Unlike DSLRs, most digital cameras lack the option to change the lens. Instead, most compact digital cameras are manufactured with a zoom lens that covers the most commonly used fields of view. Having fixed lenses, they are limited to the focal lengths they are manufactured with, except for what is available from attachments. Manufacturers have attempted (with increasing success) to overcome this disadvantage by offering extreme ranges of focal length on models known as superzooms, some of which offer far longer focal lengths than readily available DSLR lenses. There are now available perspective-correcting (PC) lenses for DSLR cameras, providing some of the attributes of view cameras. Nikon introduced the first PC lens, fully manual, in 1961. Recently, however, some manufacturers have introduced advanced lenses that both shift and tilt and are operated with automatic aperture control. However, since the introduction of the Micro Four Thirds system by Olympus and Panasonic in late 2008, mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are now widely available so the option to change lenses is no longer unique to DSLRs. Cameras for the micro four thirds system are designed with the option of a replaceable lens and accept lenses that conform to this proprietary specification. Cameras for this system have the same sensor size as the Four Thirds System but do not have the mirror and pentaprism, so as to reduce the distance between the lens and sensor. Panasonic released the first Micro Four Thirds camera, the Lumix DMC-G1. Several manufacturers have announced lenses for the new Micro Four Thirds mount, while older Four Thirds lenses can be mounted with an adapter (a mechanical spacer with front and rear electrical connectors and its own internal firmware). A similar mirror-less interchangeable lens camera, but with an APS-C-sized sensor, was announced in January 2010: the Samsung NX10. On 21 September 2011, Nikon announced with the Nikon 1 a series of high-speed MILCs. A handful of rangefinder cameras also support interchangeable lenses. Six digital rangefinders exist: the Epson R-D1 (APS-C-sized sensor), the Leica M8 (APS-H-sized sensor), both smaller than 35 mm film rangefinder cameras, and the Leica M9, M9-P, M Monochrom and M (all full-frame cameras, with the Monochrom shooting exclusively in black-and-white). In common with other interchangeable lens designs, DSLRs must contend with potential contamination of the sensor by dust particles when the lens is changed (though recent dust reduction systems alleviate this). Digital cameras with fixed lenses are not usually subject to dust from outside the camera settling on the sensor. DSLRs generally have greater cost, size, and weight. They also have louder operation, due to the SLR mirror mechanism. Sony's fixed mirror design manages to avoid this problem. However, that design has the disadvantage that some of the light received from the lens is diverted by the mirror and thus the image sensor receives about 30% less light compared with other DSLR designs. References

Example B

Plug-in electric vehicle#Well-to-wheel GHG emissions in several countries] Example A study published in the UK in April 2013 assessed the carbon footprint of plug-in electric vehicles in 20 countries. As a baseline the analysis established that manufacturing emissions account for 70 g CO2/km for an electric car and 40 g CO2/km for a petrol car. The study found that in countries with coal-intensive generation, PEVs are no different from conventional petrol-powered vehicles. Among these countries are China, Indonesia, Australia, South Africa and India. A pure electric car in India generates emissions comparable to a 20 mpg‑US (12 L/100 km; 24 mpg‑imp) petrol car. The country ranking was led by Paraguay, where all electricity is produced from hydropower, and Iceland, where electricity production relies on renewable power, mainly hydro and geothermal power. Resulting carbon emissions from an electric car in both countries are 70 g CO2/km, which is equivalent to a 220 mpg‑US (1.1 L/100 km; 260 mpg‑imp) petrol car, and correspond to manufacturing emissions. Next in the ranking are other countries with low carbon electricity generation, including Sweden (mostly hydro and nuclear power ), Brazil (mainly hydropower) and France (predominantly nuclear power). Countries ranking in the middle include Japan, Germany, the UK and the United States. The following table shows the emissions intensity estimated in the study for those countries where electric vehicle are available, and the corresponding emissions equivalent in miles per US gallon of a petrol-powered car: Country comparison of full life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from charging plug-in electric cars and emissions equivalent in terms of miles per US gallon of a petrol-powered car Country PEV well-to-wheels carbon dioxide equivalent emissions per electric car expressed in (CO2e/km) Power source PEV well-to-wheels emissions equivalent in terms of mpg US of petrol-powered car Equivalent petrol car Sweden 81 Low carbon 159 mpg‑US (1.48 L/100 km) Hybrid multiples France 93 123 mpg‑US (1.91 L/100 km) Canada 115 Fossil light 87 mpg‑US (2.7 L/100 km) Beyond hybrid Spain 146 61 mpg‑US (3.9 L/100 km) Japan 175 Broad mix 48 mpg‑US (4.9 L/100 km) New hybrid Germany 179 47 mpg‑US (5.0 L/100 km) United Kingdom 189 44 mpg‑US (5.3 L/100 km) United States 202 Fossil heavy 40 mpg‑US (5.9 L/100 km) Efficient petrol Mexico 203 40 mpg‑US (5.9 L/100 km) China 258 Coal-based 30 mpg‑US (7.8 L/100 km) Average petrol Australia 292 26 mpg‑US (9.0 L/100 km) India 370 20 mpg‑US (12 L/100 km) Note: Electric car manufacturing emissions account for 70 g CO2/km Source: Shades of Green: Electric Cars’ Carbon Emissions Around the Globe, Shrink That Footprint, February 2013. References

Example C

Plug-in electric vehicle#Cost of batteries and cost of ownership Cost of batteries As of 2015, plug-in electric vehicles are significantly more expensive as compared to conventional internal combustion engine vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles due to the additional cost of their lithium-ion battery pack. According to a 2010 study by the National Research Council, the cost of a lithium-ion battery pack was about US$1,700/kWh of usable energy, and considering that a PHEV-10 requires about 2.0 kWh and a PHEV-40 about 8 kWh, the manufacturer cost of the battery pack for a PHEV-10 is around US$3,000 and it goes up to US$14,000 for a PHEV-40. As of June 2012, and based on the three battery size options offered for the Tesla Model S, the New York Times estimated the cost of automotive battery packs between US$400 to US$500 per kilowatt-hour. A 2013 study by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy reported that battery costs came down from US$1,300 per kWh in 2007 to US$500 per kWh in 2012. The U.S. Department of Energy has set cost targets for its sponsored battery research of US$300 per kWh in 2015 and US$125 per kWh by 2022. Cost reductions through advances in battery technology and higher production volumes will allow plug-in electric vehicles to be more competitive with conventional internal combustion engine vehicles. According to a study published in February 2016 by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), battery prices fell 65% since 2010, and 35% just in 2015, reaching US$350 per kWh. The study concludes that battery costs are on a trajectory to make electric vehicles without government subsidies as affordable as internal combustion engine cars in most countries by 2022. BNEF projects that by 2040, long-range electric cars will cost less than US$22,000 expressed in 2016 dollars. BNEF expects electric car battery costs to be well below US$120 per kWh by 2030, and to fall further thereafter as new chemistries become available. Cost of ownership A study published in 2011 by the Belfer Center, Harvard University, found that the gasoline costs savings of plug-in electric cars do not offset their higher purchase prices when comparing their lifetime net present value of purchase and operating costs for the U.S. market at 2010 prices, and assuming no government subidies. According to the study estimates, a PHEV-40 is US$5,377 more expensive than a conventional internal combustion engine, while a battery electric vehicles is US$4,819 more expensive. These findings assumed a battery cost of US$600 per kWh, which means that the Chevrolet Volt battery pack cost around US$10,000 and the Nissan Leaf pack costs US$14,400. The study also assumed a gasoline price of US$3.75 per gallon (as of mid June 2011), that vehicles are driven 12,000 miles (19,000 km) per year, an average price of electricity of US$0.12 per kWh, that the plug-in hybrid is driven in all-electric mode 85% of the time, and that the owner of PEVs pay US$1,500 to install a Level II 220/240 volt charger at home. The study also include hybrid electric vehicles in the comparison, and analyzed several scenarios to determine how the comparative net savings will change over the next 10 to 20 years, assuming that battery costs will decrease while gasoline prices increase, and also assuming higher fuel efficiency of conventional cars, among other scenarios. Under the future scenarios considered, the study found that BEVs will be significantly less expensive than conventional cars (US$1,155 to US$7,181 cheaper), while PHEVs, will be more expensive than BEVs in almost all comparison scenarios, and only less expensive than conventional cars in a scenario with very low battery costs and high gasoline prices. The reason for the different savings among PEVs is because BEVs are simpler to build and do not use liquid fuel, while PHEVs have more complicated powertrains and still have gasoline-powered engines. The following table summarizes the results of four of the seven scenarios analyzed by the study. Comparison of net lifetime savings among conventional gasoline-powered cars, hybrids and plug-in electric cars for several scenarios (U.S. market at 2010 prices) Description Conventional ICE Hybrid electric (HEV) Plug-in hybrid (PHEV) Battery electric (BEV) Scenario: 2010 costs (battery US$600 per kWh, gasoline US$3.75 per gallon, and electricity US$0.12 per kWh) Purchase price US$21,390 US$22,930 US$30,235 US$33,565 Total net present cost US$32,861 US$33,059 US$38,239 US$37,680 Cost differential with conventional car - US$197 US$5,377 US$4,819 Scenario: Future Costs – Lower battery cost and higher gasoline and electricity prices (battery US$300 per kWh, gasoline US$4.50 per gallon, and electricity US$0.15 per kWh) Total net present cost US$34,152 US$32,680 US$34,601 US$30,674 Cost differential with conventional car - (US$1,472) US$449 (US$3,478) Scenario: Future Costs – Low battery cost and higher gasoline and electricity prices (battery US$150 per kWh, gasoline US$4.50 per gallon, and electricity US$0.15 per kWh) Total net present cost US$34,152 US$32,080 US$32,549 US$26,971 Cost differential with conventional car - (US$2,072) (US$1,603) (US$7,181) Scenario: Higher fuel efficiency ICEs:50 miles per US gallon (4.7 L/100 km; 60 mpg‑imp) HEVs and PHEVs: 75 miles per US gallon (3.1 L/100 km; 90 mpg‑imp) (battery US$300 per kWh, gasoline US$4.50 per gallon, and electricity US$0.15 per kWh) Total net present cost US$32,829 US$31,366 US$34,403 US$30,674 Cost differential with conventional car - (US$463) US$2,574 (US$1,155) Note: Assumes vehicles are driven 12,000 miles (19,000 km) per year and plug-in hybrid is driven in all-electric mode 85% of the time. Does not take into account other differences in cost of ownership. According to a study by the Electric Power Research Institute published in June 2013, the total cost of ownership of the 2013 Nissan Leaf SV is substantially lower than that of comparable conventional and hybrid vehicles. For comparison, the study constructed average hybrid and conventional vehicles and assumed an average US distance per trip distribution. The study took into account the manufacturer's suggested retail price, taxes, credits, destination charge, electric charging station, fuel cost, maintenance cost, and additional cost due to the use of a gasoline vehicle for trips beyond the range of the Leaf. Electric Power Research Institute comparison of the Leaf versus average conventional and hybrid cars. Vehicle Operating mode (powertrain) Total ownership cost US Average California Nissan Leaf SV All-electric $37,288 $35,596 Chevrolet Volt Plug-in hybrid $44,176 $40,800 Average Conventional Gasoline $44,949 $46,561 Average Hybrid Gasoline-electric hybrid $44,325 $45,416 Notes: Costs are based on a gasoline price of $3.64 per gallon, an electricity rate of $0.12/kWh, and a vehicle lifetime of 150,000 miles. The average conventional car was constructed by averaging of Honda Civic EX, Chevrolet Cruze LTZ, Ford Focus Titanium, and Volkswagen Passat. The average hybrid car was constructed from Ford Fusion Hybrid, Honda Civic Hybrid, Toyota Camry Hybrid XLE, and Toyota Prius trim IV. References

Example D

Comparison of digital SLRs Brand Model name Sensor size Effective megapixels Lens mount Viewfinder type Viewfinder coverage Metering zones Focus points Lowest ISO Highest ISO DxO score DxO ISO Cont. shtg LCD size Live view Movie mode Memory card Video Dimensions (mm) Weight (g) Announced (date) In production Reference Canon 5D Mark IV Full frame 30.1 EF Pentaprism 100 252 61 50 102400 91 2995 7 3.2 yes yes CF+SD 150.7×116.4×75.9 890 Aug 2016 yes [1] Canon 1D X Mark II Full frame 20.2 EF Pentaprism 100 216 61 50 409600 88 3207 14 3.2 yes yes CF+CFast 158x168x83 1530 Feb 2016 yes [1] [2] Canon 1D X Full frame 18.1 EF Pentaprism 100 252 61 50 204800 82 2786 14 3.2 yes yes CF (2x) 158x164x83 1530 Oct 2011 no [3] [4] Canon 1Ds Mark III Full frame 21.1 EF Pentaprism 100 63 45 50 3200 80 1663 5 3 yes no CF+SD 150x160x80 1205 Aug 2007 no [5][6] Canon 1D Mark IV APS-H 16.1 EF Pentaprism 100 63 45 50 102400 74 1320 10 3 yes yes CF+SD 156x157x80 1180 Oct 2009 no [7][8] Canon 5D Mark III Full frame 22.3 EF Pentaprism 100 63 61 50 102400 81 2293 6 3.2 yes yes CF+SD 152x117x77 950 (860 without battery) Mar 2012 yes [9][10] Canon 5D Mark II Full frame 21.1 EF Pentaprism 98 35 9 50 25600 79 1815 3.9 3 yes yes CF 152x114x75 810 Sep 2008 no [11][12] Canon 6D Full frame 20.2 EF Pentaprism 97 63 11 50 102400 82 2340 4.5 3 yes yes SD 145x111x71 755 (680 without battery) Sep 2012 no [13] Canon 7D Mark II APS-C 20.2 EF, EF-S Pentaprism 100 252 65 100 51200 70 1082 10 3 yes yes CF+SD 149x112x78 910 (820 without battery) Sep 2014 yes [14][15] Canon 7D APS-C 18.0 EF, EF-S Pentaprism 100 63 19 100 12800 66 854 8 3 yes yes CF 148x111x74 820 Sep 2009 no [16][17] Canon 80D APS-C 24.2 EF, EF-S Pentaprism 100 63 45 100 25600 79 1135 7.0 3 yes yes SD 139x105x79 730 Feb 2016 yes [18] [19] Canon 70D APS-C 20.2 EF, EF-S Pentaprism 98 63 19 100 25600 68 926 7.0 3 yes yes SD 139x105x79 755 Jul 2013 no [20] [21] Canon 60D APS-C 18.0 EF, EF-S Pentaprism 96 63 9 100 12800 66 813 5.3 3 yes yes SD 145x106x79 755 Aug 2010 yes [22] Canon 50D APS-C 15.1 EF, EF-S Pentaprism 95 35 9 100 12800 63 696 6.3 3 yes yes CF 146x108x74 822 Oct 2008 no [23][24] Canon 40D APS-C 10.1 EF, EF-S Pentaprism 95 35 9 100 3200 64 703 6.5 3 yes no CF 146x108x74 740 Aug 2007 no [25] Canon 30D APS-C 8.2 EF, EF-S Pentaprism 95 35 9 100 3200 59 736 5 2.5 no no CF 144x106x74 785 Feb 2006 no [26] [27] [28] Canon 20D APS-C 8.2 EF, EF-S Pentaprism 95 35 9 100 3200 62 721 5 1.8 no no CF 144x106x72 770 Aug 2004 no [29] [30] Canon 10D APS-C 6.3 EF Pentaprism 95 35 7 100 3200 57 571 3 1.8 no no CF 150x107x75 790 (without battery) Feb 2003 no [31] [32] Canon 760D APS-C 24 EF, EF-S Pentamirror 95 63 19 100 25600 70 915 5 3 yes yes SD 132×101×78 565g Feb 2015 yes Canon 750D APS-C 24 EF, EF-S Pentamirror 95 63 19 100 25600 71 919 5 3 yes yes SD 132×101×78 555g Feb 2015 yes Canon 700D APS-C 18.0 EF, EF-S Pentamirror 95 63 9 100 25600 61 681 5.0 3 yes yes SD 134x100x79 580 Mar 2013 yes [33][34] Canon 650D APS-C 18.0 EF, EF-S Pentamirror 95 63 9 100 25600 62 722 5.0 3 yes yes SD 134x100x79 575 Jun 2012 no [35][36] Canon 600D APS-C 18.0 EF, EF-S Pentamirror 95 63 9 100 12800 65 793 3.7 3 yes yes SD 133x100x80 515 (without battery) Feb 2011 yes [37][38] Canon 550D APS-C 18.0 EF, EF-S Pentamirror 95 63 9 100 12800 66 784 3.7 3 yes yes SD 129x98x75 530 Feb 2010 no [39][40] Canon 500D APS-C 15.1 EF, EF-S Pentamirror 95 35 9 100 12800 63 663 3.4 3 yes yes SD 129x98x62 480 (without battery) Mar 2009 no [41][42] Canon 450D APS-C 12.2 EF, EF-S Pentamirror 95 35 9 100 1600 61 692 3.5 3 yes no SD 129x98x62 475 (without battery) Jan 2008 no [43] [44] Canon 400D APS-C 10.1 EF, EF-S Pentamirror 95 35 9 100 1600 62 664 3 2.5 no no CF 127x95x65 510 (without battery) Aug 2006 no [45] [46] Canon 350D APS-C 8.0 EF, EF-S Pentamirror 95 35 7 100 1600 60 637 2.8 1.8 no no CF 127x94x64 540 (485 without battery) Feb 2005 no [47] [48] Canon 300D APS-C 6.3 EF, EF-S Pentamirror 95 35 7 100 1600 55 544 2.5 1.8 no no CF 142x99x72 694 (560 without battery) Aug 2003 no [49] [50] Canon 100D APS-C 18.0 EF, EF-S Pentamirror 95 63 9 100 25600 63 843 4 3 yes yes SD 117x91x69 407 (370 without battery) Mar 2013 yes [51] [52] Canon 1200D APS-C 18.0 EF, EF-S Pentamirror 95 63 9 100 12800 63 724 3.0 3 yes yes SD 130x100x78 480 (435 without battery) Feb 2014 yes [53][54] Canon 1100D APS-C 12.2 EF, EF-S Pentamirror 95 63 9 100 6400 62 755 3 2.7 yes yes SD 130x100x78 495 Feb 2011 yes [55][56] Canon 1000D APS-C 10.1 EF, EF-S Pentamirror 95 35 7 100 1600 62 719 3 2.5 yes no SD 126x98x62 502 Jun 2008 no [57][58] Nikon D5 Full frame 20.8 F-mount Pentaprism 100 180000 153 50 3280000 88 2434 12 3.2 yes yes 160x158.5x92 1405(with battery) Feb 2017 yes Nikon D4 Full frame 16.2 F-mount Pentaprism 100 91000 51 50 204800 89 2965 11 3.2 yes yes CF + XQD 160x157x91 1180 (without battery) Jan 2012 yes [59] [60] Nikon D3X Full frame 24.4 F-mount Pentaprism 100 1005 51 50 6400 88 1992 5 3 yes no CF (2x) 160x157x88 1220 Dec 2008 yes [61][62] Nikon D3S Full frame 12.1 F-mount Pentaprism 100 1005 51 100 102400 82 3253 9 3 yes yes CF (2x) 160x157x88 1246 Oct 2009 no [63][64] Nikon D800 Full frame 36.3 F-mount Pentaprism 100 91000 51 50 25600 95 2853 4 3.2 yes yes CF + SD 145x122x82 900 (without battery) Feb 2012 yes [65] [66] [67] Nikon D850 Full Frame 45.7 F-mount Pentaprism 100 180000 153 64 25600 100 2660 7 3.2 Oct 2017 [68] Nikon D700 Full frame 12.1 F-mount Pentaprism 95 1005 51 100 25600 80 2303 5 3 yes no CF 147x123x77 995 Jul 2008 no [69][70] Nikon D600 Full frame 24.3 F-mount Pentaprism 100 2016 39 50 25600 94 2980 5.5 3.2 yes yes SD (x2) 141x113x82 760 (w/o battery) Sep 2012 yes [71] [72] Nikon D300S APS-C 12.3 F-mount Pentaprism 100 1005 51 100 6400 70 787 6 3 yes yes CF+SD 147x114x74 918 Jul 2009 yes [73][74] Nikon D7000 APS-C 16.2 F-mount Pentaprism 100 2016 39 100 25600 80 1167 6 3 yes yes SD (x2) 132x105x77 690 (without battery) Sep 2010 yes [75] Nikon D90 APS-C 12.3 F-mount Pentaprism 96 420 11 100 6400 73 977 4.5 3 yes yes SD 132x103x77 620 (without battery) Aug 2008 no [76][77] Nikon D5100 APS-C 16.2 F-mount Pentamirror 95 420 11 100 25600 80 1183 4 3 yes yes SD 127x97x79 560 (without battery) Apr 2011 yes [78][79] Nikon D5000 APS-C 12.3 F-mount Pentamirror 95 420 11 100 6400 72 868 4 2.7 yes yes SD 127x104x80 560 (without battery) Apr 2009 no [80][81] Nikon D3200 APS-C 24.2 F-mount Pentamirror 95 420 11 100 12800 81 1131 4 3 yes yes SD 125x96x79 505 Apr 2012 yes [82] [83] Nikon D3100 APS-C 14.2 F-mount Pentamirror 95 420 11 100 12800 67 919 4.4 3.2 yes yes SD 124x96x74.5 505 Aug 2010 yes [84][85] Nikon D3000 APS-C 10.2 F-mount Pentamirror 95 420 11 100 3200 62 563 3 3 no no SD 126x97x64 536 Jul 2009 no [86] [87] Olympus E-5 Four Thirds 12.3 4/3 system Pentaprism 100 49 11 100 6400 56 519 5 3.0 yes yes CF, SD 142x116x75 813 (without battery) Sep 2010 yes [88] Olympus E-3 Four Thirds 10.1 4/3 system Pentaprism 100 49 11 100 3200 56 571 5 2.5 yes no CF, xD 142x116x75 800 (without battery) Oct 2007 no [89][90] Olympus E-30 Four Thirds 12.3 4/3 system Pentaprism 98 49 11 100 3200 55 530 5 2.7 yes no CF, xD 142x116x75 730 Feb 2009 yes [91][92] Olympus E-620 Four Thirds 12.3 4/3 system Pentamirror 95 49 7 100 3200 55 536 4 2.7 yes no CF, xD 130x94x60 475 (without battery) Feb 2009 yes [93][94] Pentax 645D Medium format 39.5 Pentax 645 Pentaprism 98 77 11 100 1600 82 1262 1 3 no no SDXC (2x) 156x117x119 1400 Mar 2010 no [95][96] Pentax 645Z Medium format 39.5 Pentax 645 Pentaprism 98 86000 27 100 204800 101 4505 3 3,2 yes yes SDXC (2x) 156x117x123 1550 Apr 2014 yes [97][98] Pentax K-1 Full frame 36.3 K mount Pentaprism 100 86000 33 80 204800 96 3280 4,4 3,2 yes yes SDXC (2x) 1080p30 136,5x110x85,5 750 Sep 2016 no [99][100] Pentax K-5 APS-C 16.3 K mount Pentaprism 100 77 11 80 51200 82 1162 7 3 yes yes SDXC 131x97x73 750 Sep 2010 no [101][102] Pentax K-7 APS-C 14.6 K mount Pentaprism 100 77 11 100 6400 61 536 5.2 3 yes yes SD 131x97x73 750 May 2009 no [103][104] Pentax K-50 APS-C 16.3 K mount Pentaprism 100 77 11 100 51200 79 1120 6 3 yes yes SDXC 130x97x71 650 June 2013 yes [105][106] Pentax K-500 APS-C 16.3 K mount Pentaprism 100 77 11 100 51200 79 1087 6 3 yes yes SDXC 130x97x71 646 June 2013 yes [107][108] Pentax K-30 APS-C 16.3 K mount Pentaprism 100 77 11 100 25600 79 1129 6 3 yes yes SDXC 131x97x73 649 May 2012 no [109][110] Pentax K-r APS-C 12.4 K mount Pentamirror 96 16 11 100 25600 72 755 6.0 3.0 yes yes SD 122x91x67 515 (without battery) Sep 2010 no [111][112] Pentax K-x APS-C 12.4 K mount Pentamirror 96 16 11 100 12800 72 811 4.7 2.7 yes yes SD 122x91x67 580 Sep 2009 no [113][114] Pentax K20D APS-C 14.6 K mount Pentaprism 96 16 11 100 6400 65 639 3 2.7 yes SD 141.5×101×70 800 Jan 2008 no [115] Sigma SD1 Merrill APS-C 15.4 x 3 SA mount Pentaprism 96 77 11 100 6400 N/A N/A 6 3 no no CF 146x113x80 790 Feb 2012 yes [116][117] Sony Alpha 900 Full frame 24.6 Sony α/Minolta A Pentaprism 100 40 9 100 6400 79 1431 5 3 no no CF, MS 156x117x82 895 Sep 2008 yes [118] [119] Sony Alpha 850 Full frame 24.6 Sony α/Minolta A Pentaprism 98 40 9 100 6400 79 1415 3 3 no no CF, MS 156x117x82 895 Aug 2009 yes [120][121] Sony Alpha 580 APS-C 16.2 Sony α/Minolta A Pentamirror 95 15 100 12800 80 1121 7 3 yes yes SD, MS 137x104x84 599 (without battery) Aug 2010 yes [122] Brand Model name Sensor size Effective megapixels Lens mount Viewfinder type Viewfinder coverage (% of the frame) Metering zones Focus points Lowest ISO Highest ISO DxOMark sensor score DxO ISO perfor- mance Cont. shtg (fps) LCD size (in) Live view Movie mode Memory card type Dimensions (mm) Weight (g) Announced (date) In production Reference Key: To save space, the "EOS" is left out from Canon model names. ISO values include maximum sensor range, even if in manual mode ("H1", "Hi 1", etc.) Continuous shooting: fps is "frames per second", indicates the highest speed for full resolution, without separate battery grip (i.e., not integrated into the body). Memory card types: CF is CompactFlash, SD is Secure Digital. Dimensions are rounded to the nearest whole number. Weight: with standard battery unless noted otherwise. References

Example E

Plug-in electric vehicle#Carbon footprint during production Ricardo A report published in June 2011, prepared by Ricardo in collaboration with experts from the UK's Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, found that hybrid electric cars, plug-in hybrids and all-electric cars generate more carbon emissions during their production than current conventional vehicles, but still have a lower overall carbon footprint over the full life cycle. The higher carbon footprint during production of electric drive vehicles is due mainly to the production of batteries. As an example, 43 percent of production emissions for a mid-size electric car are generated from the battery production, while for standard mid-sized gasolineinternal combustion engine vehicle, around 75% of the embedded carbon emissions during production comes from the steel used in the vehicle glider. The following table summarizes key results of this study for four powertrain technologies: Comparison of full life cycle assessment(well-to-wheels) of carbon emissions and carbon footprint during production for four different powertrain technologies Type of vehicle (powertrain) Estimated emissions in production (tonnes CO2e) Estimated lifecycle emissions (tonnes CO2e) Percentage of emissions during production Standard gasoline vehicle 5.6 24 23% Hybrid electric vehicle 6.5 21 31% Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle 6.7 19 35% Battery electric vehicle 8.8 19 46% Notes: Estimates based upon a 2015 model vehicle assuming 150,000 km (93,000 mi) full life travel using 10% ethanol blend and 500g/kWh grid electricity. The Ricardo study also found that the lifecycle carbon emissions for mid-sized gasoline and diesel vehicles are almost identical, and that the greater fuel efficiency of the diesel engine is offset by higher production emissions. References

Example F
Chart used on Battery electric vehicle, Electric car, and Tesla, Inc.. Comparison of EPA-rated range for model year 2016 and 2017 electric cars rated up until July 2017. Tesla vehicles shown correspond to the variants with the longest and shortest range for each model. References

Example foo
References

Survey

Sample !vote

• Example user name (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • good examples Θ, Ω, Ζ (brief comments)
  • meh Ν (brief comments)
  • NOT Υ, Λ (brief comments)

Your !vote doesn't have to look like this. You can reject the premise of the question and give any answer you like in any format you like -- but please play along and see if consensus emerges. Please do not reply to others !votes, but instead add replies to other editors, or extended comments, in the discussion section.