June 22, 2018, 09:14:06 PM

Author Topic: Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom  (Read 26881 times)

9VIII

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1835
Re: Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom
« Reply #105 on: March 05, 2018, 03:39:46 AM »
As the fantastic EF-S 55-250STM now shows, you can get superzoom performance on an entry level SLR.
That lens didn’t always exist, but now that it does there’s no point in making P&S Superzooms anymore.
...

What about superzooms? The Nikon P900 is very popular in my camera club, and zooms from (equivalent) 24 to 2000 mm. That’s a long way past 250mm......

Anything the Superzoom can do can be done better in an ILC format, but those aren't cheap or small cameras to begin with so really you don't gain anything by getting the superzoom, you only lose the standard EOS feature set.
The P900 is about $500 - 16 MP and f6.5 @2000mm.  To get its 2000 mm equivalent in EF/EF-S mount would take a 600mm plus 2X on APS-C body for a cost of ~$12,000!  (OK, w/3rd party 150-600 zoom ~$2000, but @ f13.) Or are you saying just use the 55-250 on an 80D (bundled ~$1250 @ Costco) and crop in like 500% ?  That leaves how many MP?  Maybe one?  Seems to me the Superzoom might in fact be a good choice for very casual long tele use!?

Pls, the superzooms is a lot smaller and lighter..... this is a huge (pun intended) factor when on a hike.... plus the convenience of no lens changes.....

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1127274-REG/nikon_26499_coolpix_p900_digital_camera.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1346737-REG/canon_eos_rebel_sl2_dslr.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1001311-USA/canon_8546b002_ef_s_55_250mm_f_4_5_6_is.html

P900 899g
SL2  453g + 55-250STM 375g = 828g!!!
(The SL2 is 406g Body Only so I’m guessing the 453g spec found elsewhere is with battery, and I’ll give the P900 the benefit of the doubt that it includes the battery)

Dimensions
P900  139.5 x 103.2 x 137.4 mm
SL2    122.4 x 92.6 x 69.8 mm

The SL2 is smaller in height and width, that’s huge when it comes to fitting things into cases and bags. One of the reasons I love my 1100D is it’s just barely short enough to fit in the Pelikan 1400 case alongside the 400f5.6.
Most pouches are long in one dimension but very shallow, the SL2+55-250STM will still fit in many bags that the P900 won’t, especially when the grip is also narrower by another 17mm.
With the camera strapped to your body while out hiking the SL2 would be more comfortable (first because it’s lighter), in this case having the longer lens will actually prevent the corners on the camera body from constantly poking you while you walk, and it’ll be easier to handle with the big grippy lens.

Just being the lighter camera alone makes the SL2+55-250 the technically correct choice for a camera to take hiking, but the SL2 gets 820 shots per battery vs. 360 shots on the P900, if you’re taking enough pictures that means the P900 weighs even more.

Point and Shoot cameras are pointless. For the quick selfies everyone has a smartphone, and even if the P900 does do better at maximum zoom, it will look horrible compared to the SL2 as soon as you fill any more than 6mm of the 22mm APS-C frame width (the P900’s 1/2.3” sensor is only 6mm wide).
Even cropping the SL2 down to 800mm equivalent you’re getting over twice the sensor area.

It would be a total mistake for almost anyone to buy a P&S Superzoom today. That last tiny group of people who might prefer the P&S would have to be buying the camera for one very specific location where you know that you can’t get away with anything less than a 2,000mm equivalent crop.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2018, 03:44:21 AM by 9VIII »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom
« Reply #105 on: March 05, 2018, 03:39:46 AM »

Valvebounce

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3759
  • Doing my best to get all of this to work together.
Re: Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom
« Reply #106 on: March 05, 2018, 04:20:42 AM »
Hi 9VIII.
I seem to recall that the FF vs Crop argument was always that at full reach one will have more pixels on the subject with a crop and therefore more detail, therefore won’t you have more pixels (maybe they are crappy tiny pixels) on the subject with a 16mp camera at 2000mm than a 24.2mp camera at 250mm cropped for the same visual result?
Won’t pixels on target = image detail, isn’t comparing sensor area cropping a large red herring?
Anyone got both kits like to show us a comparison?

Cheers, Graham.
7DII+Grip, 1DsIII, 7D+Grip, 40D+Grip, EF 24-105 f4L EF-S 17-85, EF-S 10-22, EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II, EF 1.4xIII, 2xIII, EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6l IS II, Σ17-70 f2.8-4 C, EF 50mm f1.8, YN600EX-RT, YN-E3-RT, Filters, Remotes, Macro tubes, Tripods, heads etc!

1DsIII, 20D, 24-105, 17-85, Nifty 50 pre owned

old-pr-pix

  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 334
Re: Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom
« Reply #107 on: March 05, 2018, 09:49:51 AM »
Hi 9VIII.
I seem to recall that the FF vs Crop argument was always that at full reach one will have more pixels on the subject with a crop and therefore more detail, therefore won’t you have more pixels (maybe they are crappy tiny pixels) on the subject with a 16mp camera at 2000mm than a 24.2mp camera at 250mm cropped for the same visual result?
Won’t pixels on target = image detail, isn’t comparing sensor area cropping a large red herring?
Anyone got both kits like to show us a comparison?
Exactly... in 9VIII's sample 800mm eq. crop the SL-2 would have only 2 MP on target.  If pushed all the way to 2000mm eq. the SL-2 would have < 1 MP.
The SL-2 (or new M50) + 55-250 (50-200 EF-M) would be a great combo, but it leaves out a lot of FOV from 24mm eq. to 88mm eq, (55 x 1.6) and is still more costly than P900. Add a 2nd lens and then compare.  Sure, a smartphone can cover the wide end (using the same small sensor as P900!); but what about 'standard' focal lengths?

My own preference is to have all weather-sealed gear for hiking-that's part of what attracted me to m43- well sealed options are available.  Just because a Superzoom isn't what one person would pick doesn't mean it isn't right for someone else.  Heck, for a short walk in good weather I've been known to just grab my G-15 - lots of compromises there.
 
Two systems:  Canon & m43-Olympus/Panasonic

Jester74

  • PowerShot G7 X Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 14
Re: Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom
« Reply #108 on: March 05, 2018, 09:59:55 AM »
A $400 camera regardless of features may be something that someone aspires to simply because it's the only damned camera they can afford new. Regardless of what you can buy used, hand-me-downs, there's always that special feeling when you get something new - especially in a country that is more disadvantaged than north america.

Couldn't have said it better myself :)

why thank you ;)

also to add in some areas of the world they have very large import taxation rules in place so even a sub-$400 camera becomes considerably more expensive, and higher valued units are basically out of reach to the general public and even really what is a slim middle class.

We are blessed in Europe as well as North America that import taxation is minimal.

Well, in Hungary in the very middle of Europe we are blessed with a 27% VAT...:( So our prices are hmmm, funny compared to eg. US prices. That sub-$400 camera will cost about $500 in a country where the average monthly salary is about $800.

« Last Edit: March 05, 2018, 10:05:50 AM by Jester74 »
EOS 1DX, EOS M10, EOS 5, Nikon F5, Nikon F6, Mamiya M645 ProTL, Mamiya RB67, Horseman LE 4x5 and other stuff

NancyP

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1255
Re: Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom
« Reply #109 on: March 05, 2018, 11:35:46 AM »
Bridge cameras do have a use, as do specialized point and shoots. I have a waterproof Olympus TG camera used for kayaking and salt-water use. I have contemplated the Sony RX10 IV for an all-in-one weather-resistant no-fuss camera for travel.

9VIII

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1835
Re: Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom
« Reply #110 on: March 05, 2018, 01:30:57 PM »
Hi 9VIII.
I seem to recall that the FF vs Crop argument was always that at full reach one will have more pixels on the subject with a crop and therefore more detail, therefore won’t you have more pixels (maybe they are crappy tiny pixels) on the subject with a 16mp camera at 2000mm than a 24.2mp camera at 250mm cropped for the same visual result?
Won’t pixels on target = image detail, isn’t comparing sensor area cropping a large red herring?
Anyone got both kits like to show us a comparison?

Cheers, Graham.

More resolution on the same sensor area, and with enough light to shoot at low ISO, is better.

As I’ve been saying, if you need to shoot at 2,000mm equivalent, the P900 is just about the only thing that can do that, but the effective 88-1,200mm range (where the SL2 still has a significant sensor area advantage over the P900) is certaily no slouch.

If you’re not focal length limited (which on the SL2+55-250STM would be all the way out to about 1,200mm equivalent compared to the P900) then the bigger sensor will capture more light and “generally” get a better image.
If you are shooting at base ISO on the P900 then I’m guessing it’s possible it could have a detail advantage dispite the larger sensor area on the SL2, but as soon as you push it to even ISO 800 I can pretty much guarantee that the SL2 would look better because your image is noise limited at that point. Those small sensors degrade rapidly with ISO increases.
That ratio will rapidly shift in favor of the SL2 as you move to shorter focal lengths, by the time you hit 800mm (3,000x2,000 image on the SL2+55-250STM) it’s a safe bet that the P900 would look worse even in the best conditions.

aceflibble

  • EOS 80D
  • ****
  • Posts: 268
Re: Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom
« Reply #111 on: March 05, 2018, 02:05:37 PM »
Aspirational =/= inspirational.

CR writer straight-up completely misread and misunderstood what was being said.

not really.

to inspired by a camera, or for a camera to be something you aspire to are quite similar.

No, they're not. Categorically. This isn't a point of debate or a matter of opinion: 'inspire' and 'aspire' mean different things.

An inspirational camera would be one that gives you ideas for new, exciting photos.
An aspirational camera would be one that you hope to own.

To put it another way, a new shooter buying the 85mm f/1.8 might find that lens inspirational, while the far-more-expensive 85mm f/1.2 would be the lens they aspire to purchase.

Within the context of the original article, the writer was correct to use "aspire"; the situation they describe is of someone who does not yet use an SLR, or any other dedicated camera system, aspiring to buy their first 'real' camera.
If they had meant 'inspire', instead, they would have had to have re-written about two thirds of the article.

This is what we call 'reading comprehension', and it's extremely important. I haven't been reading at a university level since I was 10 just to now have people mix up aspiration and inspiration.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom
« Reply #111 on: March 05, 2018, 02:05:37 PM »

unfocused

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4158
    • Mark Gordon Communications
Re: Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom
« Reply #112 on: March 05, 2018, 03:32:29 PM »
Aspirational =/= inspirational.

CR writer straight-up completely misread and misunderstood what was being said.

not really.

to inspired by a camera, or for a camera to be something you aspire to are quite similar.

No, they're not. Categorically. This isn't a point of debate or a matter of opinion: 'inspire' and 'aspire' mean different things.

An inspirational camera would be one that gives you ideas for new, exciting photos.
An aspirational camera would be one that you hope to own.

To put it another way, a new shooter buying the 85mm f/1.8 might find that lens inspirational, while the far-more-expensive 85mm f/1.2 would be the lens they aspire to purchase.

Within the context of the original article, the writer was correct to use "aspire"; the situation they describe is of someone who does not yet use an SLR, or any other dedicated camera system, aspiring to buy their first 'real' camera.
If they had meant 'inspire', instead, they would have had to have re-written about two thirds of the article.

This is what we call 'reading comprehension', and it's extremely important. I haven't been reading at a university level since I was 10 just to now have people mix up aspiration and inspiration.

Yes, one can aspire to have a better camera and that camera could become a source of inspiration. In the context of the original article, the author was did not say anything about a camera being or needing to be inspirational. The author's original language referenced aspiration and you are correct that they are definitely two different things.

However, while it is true that equating inspire and aspire is sloppy English, the comment regarding reading at a university level betrays a bit of an inflated ego. There are a great many of us who have been reading at a university level since age 10, but most don't feel the need to point that out, nor do we see it as particularly important to our self-image.

Yes, the CR writer did misread the column. In fact, judging by most of the comments, almost everyone commenting here failed to comprehend the column. The columnist was attempting to make the point that innovation can come through in usability and that Canon's talent for making cameras that consistently do the job and just work well is a sign of genuine innovation.

Innovation does not have to parade down the street calling attention to itself, it can be demonstrated by quiet competence. That point seems to have gone over many peoples' heads, regardless of what their reading level might happen to be.


Updated: my age-addled brain confused two different f-stoppers columns by two different authors. Therefore, the comments above are way off-base. Thank you Dak723 for correcting me. (See the exchange later in this thread.) I apologize. I am leaving the incorrect comments, but striking them, so as to be transparent about my error.

Clearly reading at a university level is of little use, if one can't keep straight what one reads. Feel free to be amused at my foolishness. I deserve it.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2018, 05:09:47 PM by unfocused »

dak723

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 823
Re: Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom
« Reply #113 on: March 05, 2018, 03:47:33 PM »

Yes, the CR writer did misread the column. In fact, judging by most of the comments, almost everyone commenting here failed to comprehend the column. The columnist was attempting to make the point that innovation can come through in usability and that Canon's talent for making cameras that consistently do the job and just work well is a sign of genuine innovation.

Innovation does not have to parade down the street calling attention to itself, it can be demonstrated by quiet competence. That point seems to have gone over many peoples' heads, regardless of what their reading level might happen to be.

Personally, I agree with your comments regarding innovation.

Sadly I cannot find one word in the article that supports your view that the author of the article believes this.  His point is quite clear - that without the innovations that are found in newer cameras and smartphones, this camera will fail. 

I have to believe that we are not reading the same article. 

EDIT:  Unfocused has acknowledged that it was indeed a different article.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2018, 09:40:34 PM by dak723 »

LDS

  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
Re: Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom
« Reply #114 on: March 05, 2018, 04:29:36 PM »
that without the innovations that are found in newer cameras and smartphones, this camera will fail.

And I would be very careful about the "innovations" in smartphones. There are true advanced algorithms in then (just look at the processing times - they could be in seconds, on the most most powerful and expensive models, or the failures when they misunderstand the subject), but there is a also a lot of hype built by some of the most powerful and rich marketing and PR departments in the world.

There are signs the smartphone market is slowing down in richer countries, and one of the few, if not the only one, differentiating feature became the photo capabilities. They have many good reason to promote them as much as they can trying to attempt to move users towards more expensive models, and keep thee 12-18 months replacement cycles alive.

They really look for and "buy" the "influencers", and Apple for example is known for blacklisting non complacent reviewers and publications, denying them invitations to official events, and devices for official previews and reviews. Very few accept to be blacklisted, and keep on being independent and objective.

If Canon acted that way, we'll see very few reviews, lately <G>.

Canon attempted already a different camera with the PowerShot N. It didn't look a success. There's a question if a more "smart" camera makes sense, or not. Direct mobile connectivity would require the user to buy another SIM - otherwise the actual tethering functions are useful enough.

"Apps" and "filters" would need to create an "ecosystem" around your devices, and get developers on board - even Microsoft failed with Windows Phone, could Canon be able?

No, the apps made for phone would not work without modifications on more powerful cameras, and anyway being forced to adopt a phone OS means also to put your future into someone else's hands - and Google is not know for being a fair competitor, and its main business is still to sell ads and user data.

Some more in-camera "RAW development" features could be useful for some users segments, but can you really process images well enough on a camera display, especially if the camera has to be kept small enough? Maybe is better to load them on devices with bigger screen - large smartphones included - and process them there?

Moreover, the added complexity of a multifunctional device is good for single function device? Smartphones are excellent multifunctional devices, with built-in camera features. But should really cameras work like smartphones?

unfocused

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4158
    • Mark Gordon Communications
Re: Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom
« Reply #115 on: March 05, 2018, 04:57:15 PM »

Yes, the CR writer did misread the column. In fact, judging by most of the comments, almost everyone commenting here failed to comprehend the column. The columnist was attempting to make the point that innovation can come through in usability and that Canon's talent for making cameras that consistently do the job and just work well is a sign of genuine innovation.

Innovation does not have to parade down the street calling attention to itself, it can be demonstrated by quiet competence. That point seems to have gone over many peoples' heads, regardless of what their reading level might happen to be.

Personally, I agree with your comments regarding innovation.

Sadly, despite your self-praise, there is not one word in the article that supports your view that the author of the article believes this.  His point is quite clear - that without the innovations that are found in newer cameras and smartphones, this camera will fail.  Not one words supports your contention that the author believes "that Canon's talent for making cameras that consistently do the job and just work well is a sign of genuine innovation."

I have to believe that we are not reading the same article.  If we are, sorry to say, most everyone but you comprehended the article quite well.  :(

You are absolutely correct. And I am wrong.

I completely mis-remembered the content of the column and confused it with the content of another column and thread, that talked about Canon's perceived lack of innovation. Needless to say, there is a huge amount of egg on my face. https://fstoppers.com/originals/heres-why-canon-does-not-need-innovate-201130

I was thinking of that article's point:

Quote
Canon makes cameras that have the most important and fundamental features right. Bells and whistles are fine and are things to get excited about, but if the core features of how a camera is supposed to operate are compromised then it's no longer practical. These are some of the reasons why Canon continues to dominate. The thing to consider here is that Canon has already innovated because they're still ahead when it comes to how their cameras perform for the majority of professionals.

I will be correcting my previous post (but retaining my errors so all can see). Thank you.

Sporgon

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3589
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom
« Reply #116 on: March 05, 2018, 05:16:13 PM »
Clearly reading at a university level is of little use, if one can't keep straight what one reads. Feel free to be amused at my foolishness. I deserve it.

 ;D  brave man.

( Ace would never have made that mistake  ;)   )

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ***************
  • Posts: 22706
Re: Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom
« Reply #117 on: March 05, 2018, 05:50:34 PM »
I haven't been reading at a university level since I was 10 just to now have people mix up aspiration and inspiration.

Us dum hicks is lucky to has smart peoples like y'all to edumicate us.

I has seen that brainiac machurity and feelings machurity sometime dont sink up.   Them smartyasses maybe find theyselves gettin nocked around the playground as yunguns and when theys growed up they sumtimes has sad little lifes with no friends, even if most peoples are to nice to tells em theys is asshats.
EOS 1D X, EOS M6, lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom
« Reply #117 on: March 05, 2018, 05:50:34 PM »

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS
  • ***********
  • Posts: 6864
  • posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Re: Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom
« Reply #118 on: March 05, 2018, 07:10:20 PM »
On the utility of cheap cameras

Three images of the same subject, cropped to the same field of view, and resized to 1000 pixels wide....

One from a 70D and a 55-250 at 250mm

One from a 6D2 and a 150-600 at 600mm

One from a SX50 at 1200mm (equivalent)

Don't try and tell me that there is no place for low end cameras, and in particular, superzooms. The only way I am going to beat that obsolete SX50 in this example is with a 5Ds and a 600F4..... and that's a whole lot more money than most of the world is willing to pay. Oh wait, I could get a 5 year newer superzoom that would beat it for distant objects.......

« Last Edit: March 05, 2018, 07:36:48 PM by Don Haines »
The best camera is the one in your hands

unfocused

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4158
    • Mark Gordon Communications
Re: Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom
« Reply #119 on: March 05, 2018, 07:46:03 PM »
...Don't try and tell me that there is no place for low end cameras, and in particular, superzooms...

There is another factor to be considered in this seriously off-topic discussion – focus.

Anyone who has shot a distant subject and tried extreme cropping knows how difficult it is to keep the subject in focus. In theory, the idea of using an SL2 and a 55-250 and then cropping sounds good, but in reality, the end result is likely to be out of focus. It's near impossible to nail focus under those conditions.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom
« Reply #119 on: March 05, 2018, 07:46:03 PM »