Article: Canon's 4000D and the Race to the Bottom

YuengLinger

Print the ones you love.
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,751
2,269
USA
Valvebounce said:
Hi Folks.
A far more interesting topic than the original, fascinating how threads evolve much like personal conversations!
When asked why I take photos my response is “I’m behind the camera because I hate being in front of it.”
I hate pictures of me unless they are completely candid, if I see you lining up a shot I wil turn away, that is how strongly I feel about it.
Yes I have little or no proof that I have been anywhere very much, but I have seen and done many things of interest to me and at present I can remember them! Whether being dipped along with the sheep as a child whilst on summer holiday at a farm will change that I don’t know? ;D

Cheers, Graham.

I hear you! But I think the majority of current portrait photographers have gotten away from the dour, static, or pained poses that made subjects wonder what they were paying for. Planned sessions now produce dynamic, expressive images. And this is thanks to many factors, including affordable dSLR's, tons of instructing available for free on the Web, sites such as pinterest...
 
Upvote 0
LDS said:
scyrene said:
Meh. My perspective is very different, and I'll make two brief points. First, I've spent my life doing the opposite - taking photogaphs of other things, and almost never myself or people in general. And now I regret that the record of my own life is missing big chunks. I have lots of bland, generic shots of buildings, landscapes, sunsets, market stalls from holidays, which could have been taken by anyone.

There's a big difference between pictures of our life - even self-portraits - and selfies. Selfies are too identical to each other, it''s their very nature, and rather always excluding the environment but small pieces just to show enough to tell one wasn't at home.

Self-portraits are an ancient form of art - but they were still made to tell something. Selfies, with their identical framing and pose, face expression, in-phone filters, etc. etc. tells nothing, and there's an inherent "fakeness" in them, and a dose of selfishness.

I prefer by far candid shots which tells far more about my life, the people around me, and the environment they were made in - and sure, nowadays you can take good ones with a good smartphone camera too.

One risk is smartphone photography is too "fashion-driven", people are forced into thinking they have to do like "everybody else", or better, a restricted number of "influencers" (often paid) do - and they have to use the same imagery and channels because it's there where big money through ads are made.

I think anything that goes against this huge drive to conformity is welcome.

Yes, some people's selfies look alike - people often strike the pose they knew looked good (to their taste) last time. But I strongly reject the accusation of selfishness. Why is it selfish? That just seems a way of telling people to act a certain way (conforming to your views, which is funny as you talk negatively about conformity, on which more below).

I also reject the old trope that created works ('art') have value because of the meaning it contains, or conveys. I see this a lot in discussions around photographers considered the best in their field - oh well, because of this diagonal the landscape draws you in, or this portrait tells a story. No. The 'artist as magician' thing that's simply elitism. We can read all sorts into images when we view them. We can attempt to put narrative into images when we create them. But images are just images. They aren't stories, they aren't portals into the soul or the eternal or whatever else people ascribe to them. We each react in our way to creating them, or viewing them, and that is a matter of personal preference.

And on conformity, well humans are conformist. There's a spectrum of behaviour, both across and within people. But most people who think they're non-conformist are just conforming in a different way, and that seems to me a worse cliché - oh, I'm not like those sheep, I'm special. A truly original creation is a very rare thing (and novelty-as-value is another long-held cliché that lacks convincing foundation).

Anyway, this is all very off topic - on which I'll say, anything that makes photography accessible to those who want to do it is a good thing!
 
Upvote 0

LDS

Sep 14, 2012
1,763
293
Valvebounce said:
A far more interesting topic than the original, fascinating how threads evolve much like personal conversations!

It's not so far from the original - different imaging devices also carry an imagery philosophy with them - people don't use smartphones as they use a camera. So, bringing to the market an affordable camera like the 4000D implies also to keep on bringing a different imagery attitude.
 
Upvote 0
Few smartphones provide anything other than a very wide angle view. Hence selfies and other people pictures tend toward the usual wide distortion that most portrait photographers would avoid by using a longer FL lens and greater camera-subject distance. According to Rutgers, it seems the ubiquitous smartphone 'look' is now driving more people to have their face altered. https://news.rutgers.edu/research-news/selfies-drive-self-image-and-may-lead-many-seek-plastic-surgery/20180301#.WqKs7DGWyUk

Rather than use the best tool for the job, use what's already in your hand; but, only after seeing your cosmetic surgeon!
 
Upvote 0

LDS

Sep 14, 2012
1,763
293
scyrene said:
But I strongly reject the accusation of selfishness. Why is it selfish? That just seems a way of telling people to act a certain way (conforming to your views, which is funny as you talk negatively about conformity, on which more below).

It's prepending always the "I" in front of everything else. IMHO the whole "social network" world is in reality not "social" but
"selfish" - the endless self-promotion in competition with others measured by "likes" - and moreover everything happens inside a cage designed by others for their own advantage.

Don't get me wrong, the occasional selfie is OK, but when it becomes mostly the only way you image the world around you and to describe you, I think there's something wrong.

scyrene said:
I also reject the old trope that created works ('art') have value because of the meaning it contains, or conveys.

I just said images that "tells" - telling an history, not a "deep meaning", maybe just simple your history - because there's something "happening" in the images - maybe something that is understandable only by you and close people, and it could be not art at all.

Selfies are static - they don't tell anything, but maybe that you were in a place barely recognizable, and are designed to be shown off to others. I have photos of me where I'm far from being happy and beautiful. They also tell stories about me, stories that are sad but still part of me, and of course I wouldn't publish them on a social - if I published anything, of course.

scyrene said:
And on conformity, well humans are conformist. There's a spectrum of behaviour, both across and within people.

True - and the cunning social engineers knows it very well, and exploit it fully to make a lot of money. The whole "social network" system is design around conformism, and to never challenge people attitudes and thinking. Never get out of your comfort zone, be fed only with contents you surely "like", and especially, you'll likely to buy.

scyrene said:
But most people who think they're non-conformist are just conforming in a different way, and that seems to me a worse cliché - oh, I'm not like those sheep, I'm special. A truly original creation is a very rare thing (and novelty-as-value is another long-held cliché that lacks convincing foundation).

True. But as long as you avoid to challenge people minds, and just use positive feedback to strengthen preconceptions, while refusing innovative thinking, you'll make it rarer and rarer.

I've seen recently people at photo course snubbing the works of photographers like Robert Frank, Stephen Shore or Andras Gursky because they are not like the images they are used to see and they aim to make. Of course, you don't have to like them or copy them, but they instantly refused them, not the slightest attempt to relate with them.

That's why I welcome a camera like the 4000D, its limitations could be actually be useful.

scyrene said:
Anyway, this is all very off topic - on which I'll say, anything that makes photography accessible to those who want to do it is a good thing!

So, we agree on that, at least :)
 
Upvote 0

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,127
451
Vancouver, BC
old-pr-pix said:
Hence selfies and other people pictures tend toward the usual wide distortion that most portrait photographers would avoid by using a longer FL lens and greater camera-subject distance.

Yay, thank you... someone who gets it :)

I'm amazed at how often people talk about the magnification ability of a camera and its field of view, but totally ignore the perspective aspect of choosing a different focal length lens -- which, in my opinion, is the MOST important reason to choose a different FL.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,100
12,864
old-pr-pix said:
Few smartphones provide anything other than a very wide angle view. Hence selfies and other people pictures tend toward the usual wide distortion that most portrait photographers would avoid by using a longer FL lens and greater camera-subject distance. According to Rutgers, it seems the ubiquitous smartphone 'look' is now driving more people to have their face altered. https://news.rutgers.edu/research-news/selfies-drive-self-image-and-may-lead-many-seek-plastic-surgery/20180301#.WqKs7DGWyUk

Rather than use the best tool for the job, use what's already in your hand; but, only after seeing your cosmetic surgeon!

Or get a telephoto lens attachment and a really long selfie stick...

61zYle2X2bL._SY355_.jpg
Super-Long-selfie-stick-Branding-in-Asia.jpg
 
Upvote 0
neuroanatomist said:
old-pr-pix said:
Few smartphones provide anything other than a very wide angle view. Hence selfies and other people pictures tend toward the usual wide distortion that most portrait photographers would avoid by using a longer FL lens and greater camera-subject distance. According to Rutgers, it seems the ubiquitous smartphone 'look' is now driving more people to have their face altered. https://news.rutgers.edu/research-news/selfies-drive-self-image-and-may-lead-many-seek-plastic-surgery/20180301#.WqKs7DGWyUk

Rather than use the best tool for the job, use what's already in your hand; but, only after seeing your cosmetic surgeon!

Or get a telephoto lens attachment and a really long selfie stick...

61zYle2X2bL._SY355_.jpg
Super-Long-selfie-stick-Branding-in-Asia.jpg
Excellent! Problem solved ;)
 
Upvote 0

espressino

sigh.
Feb 26, 2018
33
16
The only way I can make sense of this camera is that Canon wants to stabilise its prices by defining a ‘bottom’ model, from which onwards potential purchasers can then think “if i spend x €/$/$ more I get x, y, z features more, so I’ll go for the xyzD.”

Last year in summer, a while before the M100 came out, the M10 with kit lens was available at around 300€, a lot less than the suggested retail price for the 4000D (I know, we don’t know yet what the 4000D will actually sell for). I know the M10 has other shortcomings, but if someone is serious about wanting to upgrade from smart phones, the transition is made easier, and more intuitively, when they use an M10. I think I’d even prefer an 1000D to the 4000 because the lower resolution makes it so much more forgiving about slight focus errors. No wifi? The app is full of bugs anyway and usually its faster to take out the SD card and put it into an adapter which connects to your phone.

I think I agree with the main point of the article: If I imagine I was 17 years old again and looking to buy my first camera from the money I earned on my paper route (I know I know): the EOS 4000D has no touch interface, the flash must be popped up manually, Canon even saved on the green ink to print on the camera body. I think this is just setting up consumers for disappointment because the user interface really won’t resemble that of a smartphone. The companion app is free to download for every Canon user. But it also tells you about lots of features your camera doesn’t have — isn’t that just rubbing it in? My 17-year-old self would feel cheated, and probably wouldn’t come back to this manufacturer. When I got the EOS 1000D as my first DSLR (after an analog 300V) I knew I was getting an entry-level model, but I knew I could ‘trust’ Canon. And that’s why I stuck with them, even though I could have bought into a different ecosystem when I upgraded since I’d been using the kit lens for years.

I think this trust is also important when investing in new glass: when I feel that I bought an entry-level model in which they kind of short-changed me, how would I know that this wouldn’t happen again with all those lenses which are great value for money (and which were essential, for me, in realising that a new lens won’t cost me the world and that it is actually possible to explore photography some more, and to take baby steps towards upgrading my gear.)

I guess that camera hardware used to have longer obsolescence cycles than smartphones (and, since mirrorless is still catching up, they have faster re-fresh cycles too), but I’m not sure this is still working with DSLRS. Why should I get a 4000D for my nephew when a model released 10 years ago offers basically the same functions? And it's not about paying for a Toyota and expecting a Ferrari, it's about what the camera promises: ease of use and a step up from smartphones, and I'm not sure if it actually delivers on this basic promise without the newly minted photographer having to jump so many hurdles that many of them might lose interest before they even got started.
 
Upvote 0

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,127
451
Vancouver, BC
espressino said:
I think I agree with the main point of the article: If I imagine I was 17 years old again and looking to buy my first camera from the money I earned on my paper route ...

Try to imagine if you lived in a country where a full-time manager with seniority at the newspaper made a salary of $800, and must support their family with that.

Now, try to imagine what the 17 year old boy who delievers those papers makes.

How much do you think he or she could spend on a camera?

Now, try to imagine that in this boy's country, cameras pretty much all cost at least twice as much as they do in your country -- because that's the reality of it. That M5 or A6500 is looking pretty distant.
 
Upvote 0

espressino

sigh.
Feb 26, 2018
33
16
Talys said:
espressino said:
I think I agree with the main point of the article: If I imagine I was 17 years old again and looking to buy my first camera from the money I earned on my paper route ...

Try to imagine if you lived in a country where a full-time manager with seniority at the newspaper made a salary of $800, and must support their family with that.

Now, try to imagine what the 17 year old boy who delievers those papers makes.

How much do you think he or she could spend on a camera?

Now, try to imagine that in this boy's country, cameras pretty much all cost at least twice as much as they do in your country -- because that's the reality of it. That M5 or A6500 is looking pretty distant.

Yes, and that's why I said that the M10 sells for less than the 4000D atm. I was talking about what entry-level models offer, and maybe to put it more generally: there might be older models around that are better suited for beginners and will be priced similarly. Nowhere did I mention the A5 or A6500. And there's a great twitter essay by Teju Cole on how it's condescending to think that people in the Global South don't have 'first world problems' too.

And by the way, my Eos 77D cost me a month's salary.
 
Upvote 0

LDS

Sep 14, 2012
1,763
293
espressino said:
I think this is just setting up consumers for disappointment because the user interface really won’t resemble that of a smartphone.

Do you think people are so stupid? Smartphone users may also use Playstation, XBox or Switch consoles where they know very well how physical controls help to concentrate on what's happening while using both hands to control different functions at the same time, instead of looking for visual controls on the screen and touching them and check if they've been activated. In a camera like this touch would be mosly useful to inspect photos only. Touch AF won't work, and menu navigation doesn't really require touch.

espressino said:
But it also tells you about lots of features your camera doesn’t have — isn’t that just rubbing it in? My 17-year-old self would feel cheated, and probably wouldn’t come back to this manufacturer.

Why? When I was a teenager I very well knew my camera lacked more advanced features I could not afford - still, I was happy to have a camera that would let me control the image creating process, even if it required some more effort. Even today, I would like the exposure scale 1D cameras have in the viewfinder, on the right, and my 5D has not, but I'm not willingly to spend some thousand more for it.

Does the same people feel cheated when their $75/100smartphone lacks the features of the $900 ones? Or just dream to buy the more expensive model one day?

One feels cheated if promised features that are not available or won't work really. Buying a cheap device implies limitations.

If you look at this camera top-down, of course it is severely lacking - just, look at it bottom-up. And no one is forced to buy the 4000D, some will prefer some upper model - Canon decided to segment the low-end more - in an attempt to push more SLRs.
 
Upvote 0

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,040
This thread is near comical...we have an entry level item that so many folks have an issue with because it doesn't represent what beginning photography or technology should be for someone coming into the art form at square one.

One of the worst things you can do to anyone learning something from the git go is giving them too many options and pulling the onus away from the basics. This model is a great starting point and arguing about DR, 4k, frame rates etc missing the point entirely. If you think Canon's offerings on the bottom are telling moments about the future of the lineup you are missing yet another point about the basic needs of new photographers, students, emerging economies and budgets.

Craig, close the hasp on this one.
 
Upvote 0

espressino

sigh.
Feb 26, 2018
33
16
LDS said:
espressino said:
I think this is just setting up consumers for disappointment because the user interface really won’t resemble that of a smartphone.

Do you think people are so stupid? Smartphone users may also use Playstation, XBox or Switch consoles where they know very well how physical controls help to concentrate on what's happening while using both hands to control different functions at the same time, instead of looking for visual controls on the screen and touching them and check if they've been activated. In a camera like this touch would be mosly useful to inspect photos only. Touch AF won't work, and menu navigation doesn't really require touch.

espressino said:
But it also tells you about lots of features your camera doesn’t have — isn’t that just rubbing it in? My 17-year-old self would feel cheated, and probably wouldn’t come back to this manufacturer.

Why? When I was a teenager I very well knew my camera lacked more advanced features I could not afford - still, I was happy to have a camera that would let me control the image creating process, even if it required some more effort. Even today, I would like the exposure scale 1D cameras have in the viewfinder, on the right, and my 5D has not, but I'm not willingly to spend some thousand more for it.

Does the same people feel cheated when their $75/100smartphone lacks the features of the $900 ones? Or just dream to buy the more expensive model one day?

One feels cheated if promised features that are not available or won't work really. Buying a cheap device implies limitations.

If you look at this camera top-down, of course it is severely lacking - just, look at it bottom-up. And no one is forced to buy the 4000D, some will prefer some upper model - Canon decided to segment the low-end more - in an attempt to push more SLRs.


Canon markets this as “a step up from smartphones”. I did not introduce the phone analogy, it’s Canon who are using it, and I’m just saying that the analogy doesn’t work. If you sit someone who has never held a DSLR in his hands down with this camera then none of the gestures they have internalised or feel natural will work (sorry, I have no data for this, just anecdotal evidence). Tough luck, you will say, that’s not how photography works. But maybe that’s how some grow into it — and for many focus by touch simply is the way a camera is ‘supposed’ to work. There’s nothing proper or improper about this. Even entering your wifi code without touch is a pain; even the rudimentary live view focus in the 1000D would have benefitted from a touch screen simply because it would make it easier to move the focus point (Had touch been available at the time at relatively low cost; I’m not saying that that’s what the camera should have had 10 years ago. I’m saying technology has developped in the past ten years).

This is still an expensive camera. And Canon has a history of putting excellent features in low-priced cameras.

But yes, sit someone down with a Nokia 3310 and tell them that they shouldn’t expect more from a phone because that’s just the way the world is. Expecting a touch interface in a 399 model would just be an illusion of grandeur.

I think my first reply stated just that: it’s a move by Canon to segment the entry-level market. All I did was question the wisdom of this move, and I truly apologise for it. And I’m sorry that my own scholarship on poverty in the Global South interfered with my fairly recent research in all aspects of Canon’s entry-level line-up. I find it just a bit odd that two people who proclaim to own a 5DS R are lecturing me about what to expect from a low-end camera.
 
Upvote 0

espressino

sigh.
Feb 26, 2018
33
16
LDS said:
espressino said:
I think this is just setting up consumers for disappointment because the user interface really won’t resemble that of a smartphone.

Do you think people are so stupid? Smartphone users may also use Playstation, XBox or Switch consoles where they know very well how physical controls help to concentrate on what's happening while using both hands to control different functions at the same time, instead of looking for visual controls on the screen and touching them and check if they've been activated. In a camera like this touch would be mosly useful to inspect photos only. Touch AF won't work, and menu navigation doesn't really require touch.

espressino said:
But it also tells you about lots of features your camera doesn’t have — isn’t that just rubbing it in? My 17-year-old self would feel cheated, and probably wouldn’t come back to this manufacturer.

Why? When I was a teenager I very well knew my camera lacked more advanced features I could not afford - still, I was happy to have a camera that would let me control the image creating process, even if it required some more effort. Even today, I would like the exposure scale 1D cameras have in the viewfinder, on the right, and my 5D has not, but I'm not willingly to spend some thousand more for it.

Does the same people feel cheated when their $75/100smartphone lacks the features of the $900 ones? Or just dream to buy the more expensive model one day?

One feels cheated if promised features that are not available or won't work really. Buying a cheap device implies limitations.

If you look at this camera top-down, of course it is severely lacking - just, look at it bottom-up. And no one is forced to buy the 4000D, some will prefer some upper model - Canon decided to segment the low-end more - in an attempt to push more SLRs.

And incidentally I wasn't comparing apples and oranges: both the M10 and the 4000D have a suggested retail price of 399€ in Europe (kit version). So I was not calling for, or expecting there to be, any Ferrari-like features to be included.
 
Upvote 0

LDS

Sep 14, 2012
1,763
293
espressino said:
And incidentally I wasn't comparing apples and oranges: both the M10 and the 4000D have a suggested retail price of 399€ in Europe (kit version). So I was not calling for, or expecting there to be, any Ferrari-like features to be included.

The 4000D and M10 have two very different user interface - and target different users. If you have a viewfinder and want to use it, you need physical controls to change settings without going back and forth from the viewfinder to the rear screen, and the touch screen becomes irrelevant while shooting.

On the M10 the touchscreen helps to reduce the number of physical controls needed, and you have to use the screen anyway to shoot, so a touch screen works well.

Cheap devices - phone, cars, washing machines, etc. do sell well to people who couldn't afford them otherwise. Actually, many shops are filled with low-end and cheaper devices, you may have to go to specialized ones to find and buy the more expensive ones.

You just need to avoid to deceive customers pretending you're selling them something far superior. Most customers are not stupid - they understand what they buy.
 
Upvote 0

espressino

sigh.
Feb 26, 2018
33
16
LDS said:
espressino said:
And incidentally I wasn't comparing apples and oranges: both the M10 and the 4000D have a suggested retail price of 399€ in Europe (kit version). So I was not calling for, or expecting there to be, any Ferrari-like features to be included.

The 4000D and M10 have two very different user interface - and target different users. If you have a viewfinder and want to use it, you need physical controls to change settings without going back and forth from the viewfinder to the rear screen, and the touch screen becomes irrelevant while shooting.

On the M10 the touchscreen helps to reduce the number of physical controls needed, and you have to use the screen anyway to shoot, so a touch screen works well.

Cheap devices - phone, cars, washing machines, etc. do sell well to people who couldn't afford them otherwise. Actually, many shops are filled with low-end and cheaper devices, you may have to go to specialized ones to find and buy the more expensive ones.

You just need to avoid to deceive customers pretending you're selling them something far superior. Most customers are not stupid - they understand what they buy.

Absolutely. I agree with every single point you make.
 
Upvote 0

C-A430

Powershot C-A430
Apr 16, 2016
42
0
Europe
espressino said:
LDS said:
espressino said:
I think this is just setting up consumers for disappointment because the user interface really won’t resemble that of a smartphone.

Do you think people are so stupid? Smartphone users may also use Playstation, XBox or Switch consoles where they know very well how physical controls help to concentrate on what's happening while using both hands to control different functions at the same time, instead of looking for visual controls on the screen and touching them and check if they've been activated. In a camera like this touch would be mosly useful to inspect photos only. Touch AF won't work, and menu navigation doesn't really require touch.

espressino said:
But it also tells you about lots of features your camera doesn’t have — isn’t that just rubbing it in? My 17-year-old self would feel cheated, and probably wouldn’t come back to this manufacturer.

Why? When I was a teenager I very well knew my camera lacked more advanced features I could not afford - still, I was happy to have a camera that would let me control the image creating process, even if it required some more effort. Even today, I would like the exposure scale 1D cameras have in the viewfinder, on the right, and my 5D has not, but I'm not willingly to spend some thousand more for it.

Does the same people feel cheated when their $75/100smartphone lacks the features of the $900 ones? Or just dream to buy the more expensive model one day?

One feels cheated if promised features that are not available or won't work really. Buying a cheap device implies limitations.

If you look at this camera top-down, of course it is severely lacking - just, look at it bottom-up. And no one is forced to buy the 4000D, some will prefer some upper model - Canon decided to segment the low-end more - in an attempt to push more SLRs.


Canon markets this as “a step up from smartphones”. I did not introduce the phone analogy, it’s Canon who are using it, and I’m just saying that the analogy doesn’t work. If you sit someone who has never held a DSLR in his hands down with this camera then none of the gestures they have internalised or feel natural will work (sorry, I have no data for this, just anecdotal evidence). Tough luck, you will say, that’s not how photography works. But maybe that’s how some grow into it — and for many focus by touch simply is the way a camera is ‘supposed’ to work. There’s nothing proper or improper about this. Even entering your wifi code without touch is a pain; even the rudimentary live view focus in the 1000D would have benefitted from a touch screen simply because it would make it easier to move the focus point (Had touch been available at the time at relatively low cost; I’m not saying that that’s what the camera should have had 10 years ago. I’m saying technology has developped in the past ten years).

This is still an expensive camera. And Canon has a history of putting excellent features in low-priced cameras.

But yes, sit someone down with a Nokia 3310 and tell them that they shouldn’t expect more from a phone because that’s just the way the world is. Expecting a touch interface in a 399 model would just be an illusion of grandeur.

I think my first reply stated just that: it’s a move by Canon to segment the entry-level market. All I did was question the wisdom of this move, and I truly apologise for it. And I’m sorry that my own scholarship on poverty in the Global South interfered with my fairly recent research in all aspects of Canon’s entry-level line-up. I find it just a bit odd that two people who proclaim to own a 5DS R are lecturing me about what to expect from a low-end camera.

That is exactly why it is a good step-up - you will lose your bad habits from your 100€ phone and get used to DSLR controls. Then you can quickly find your way with your university's, your company's or your bosses 5DIII or 70D.
 
Upvote 0

C-A430

Powershot C-A430
Apr 16, 2016
42
0
Europe
espressino said:
LDS said:
espressino said:
And incidentally I wasn't comparing apples and oranges: both the M10 and the 4000D have a suggested retail price of 399€ in Europe (kit version). So I was not calling for, or expecting there to be, any Ferrari-like features to be included.

The 4000D and M10 have two very different user interface - and target different users. If you have a viewfinder and want to use it, you need physical controls to change settings without going back and forth from the viewfinder to the rear screen, and the touch screen becomes irrelevant while shooting.

On the M10 the touchscreen helps to reduce the number of physical controls needed, and you have to use the screen anyway to shoot, so a touch screen works well.

Cheap devices - phone, cars, washing machines, etc. do sell well to people who couldn't afford them otherwise. Actually, many shops are filled with low-end and cheaper devices, you may have to go to specialized ones to find and buy the more expensive ones.

You just need to avoid to deceive customers pretending you're selling them something far superior. Most customers are not stupid - they understand what they buy.

Absolutely. I agree with every single point you make.

I agree, but must come back to the previous post for a moment.

In Eastern Europe, Middle East, Africa and probably India too, M10 is not selling at half price. It will be "current" camera and have full price until Nederlands gets M100 at half price AND sells them all. Only then will M10 be discounted and still it will not sell out until 2022.

4000D is NOT meant for people who are used to 400€ smartphones and can buy M10 for 2 days pay, but for those who live where M10 is still selling for original MRP+tax in a place where that is 2 monthly salaries.

One of these days I will post a picture of shops in my area selling Canon 70D and Nikon 5300D for 800-1200€ (new with kit lens). M10 never reached my city and never will. Maybe M50 will, next year, for a 800€.
 
Upvote 0

espressino

sigh.
Feb 26, 2018
33
16
C-A430 said:
espressino said:
LDS said:
espressino said:
And incidentally I wasn't comparing apples and oranges: both the M10 and the 4000D have a suggested retail price of 399€ in Europe (kit version). So I was not calling for, or expecting there to be, any Ferrari-like features to be included.

The 4000D and M10 have two very different user interface - and target different users. If you have a viewfinder and want to use it, you need physical controls to change settings without going back and forth from the viewfinder to the rear screen, and the touch screen becomes irrelevant while shooting.

On the M10 the touchscreen helps to reduce the number of physical controls needed, and you have to use the screen anyway to shoot, so a touch screen works well.

Cheap devices - phone, cars, washing machines, etc. do sell well to people who couldn't afford them otherwise. Actually, many shops are filled with low-end and cheaper devices, you may have to go to specialized ones to find and buy the more expensive ones.

You just need to avoid to deceive customers pretending you're selling them something far superior. Most customers are not stupid - they understand what they buy.

Absolutely. I agree with every single point you make.

I agree, but must come back to the previous post for a moment.

In Eastern Europe, Middle East, Africa and probably India too, M10 is not selling at half price. It will be "current" camera and have full price until Nederlands gets M100 at half price AND sells them all. Only then will M10 be discounted and still it will not sell out until 2022.

4000D is NOT meant for people who are used to 400€ smartphones and can buy M10 for 2 days pay, but for those who live where M10 is still selling for original MRP+tax in a place where that is 2 monthly salaries.

One of these days I will post a picture of shops in my area selling Canon 70D and Nikon 5300D for 800-1200€ (new with kit lens). M10 never reached my city and never will. Maybe M50 will, next year, for a 800€.

Well you may be right, but we cannot know which market the 4000D is 'actually' meant for. All I can say is that it's sold in Europe - even if it isn't meant for that market, and Canon's official suggested retail price is the same for the M10 and the 4000D. Incidentally, it is the same SRP as the 1000D ten years ago, and that was a camera which was more capable, relative to what was available in higher segments of the market back then. And some early reviewers agree (https://www.techradar.com/reviews/canon-eos-4000d).

And even if the camera is meant for emerging economies instead of Europe and the US, then that is another reason to take issue with the fact that camera companies seek to unload old hardware at inflated prices in these markets. (Even price parity would be an issue because of differences in purchasing power; but then again how would one stop cameras from being re-imported.)
 
Upvote 0