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

[Don Haines]

Products like these show a fundamental misunderstanding of the camera market today. Instead of lowering the bar, why not raise it with higher quality hardware and software that can beat the smartphone and convince consumers that real cameras are worth it?

What an elitist snob!

Does he think that it's 1DX2 or nothing? Do you really want to raise the entry bar and keep people out?

This is a very capable camera at a low price. This lowers the barriers of getting into DSLRs, and that will get more people started.

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of Elderberries! I fart in your general direction!

 

[YuengLinger]

At least some people who spend $1000 on the latest iPhone might have enough money now to buy a REAL camera.

 

[Sharlin]

There were probably people lamenting ”the race to the bottom” also when Canon released the 300D (first consumer digital SLR) and the original 5D (first affordable 35mm DSLR). Or, for that matter, the AE-1, which was a cheap plasticky body by the standards of its time.

 

[ritholtz]

There were probably people lamenting ”the race to the bottom” also when Canon released the 300D (first consumer digital SLR) and the original 5D (first affordable 35mm DSLR). Or, for that matter, the AE-1, which was a cheap plasticky body by the standards of its time.

If Canon releases FF version of 4000d, I will buy it. Hoping for Canon to release very small and very cheap FF Camera.

 

[AuroraChaserDoug]

The 4000D will be the new darling of the Walmart camera counter. The consumer market is very price conscious even as the products in it are considered disposable. This is pretty much a disposable consumer product. Everyone that wants to make coffee at home can buy something that will make coffee. Some people want more control over water temperatures and consistency of the grind and will pay for it. The 4000D is a dslr for the Mr Coffee crowd of camera consumers.

 

[amorse]

I think you nailed it. I saw that article the other day and it really missed the mark for me as well. It seems to me that Canon has been pretty successful in owning the entry level market and then moving those buyers up stream as they upgrade - Canon's marketshare shows that they've made some right choices. This release is very much in line with that thinking.

I think the author is trying to make the case that releasing a camera at this market position turns people away from ILCs, but the reasoning behind this seems pretty flawed in my mind. They note that this market wants to get blurry backgrounds and then criticize the camera for not being kitted with a lens that can deliver this. Isn't this fact true of nearly any body you buy, let alone an entry level camera? It seems pretty misleading to criticize the camera over it's kit lens.

 

[CaMeRa QuEsT]

Canon is doing exactly what it needs to do to regain lost sales. It doesn't cost Canon much to make this camera, and with it they can dip their toes into an unknown, untapped and potentially huge market. Also, I'm game for this camera: come late-to-post holiday season, when all those Black Friday returns will be sold at the Canon Store refurbished for around $100, I'll grab myself a handful of them for the kids. The dawn of the disposable DSLR, if you will, a camera you can take to that 3rd world country trip that you wouldn't mind getting smashed, stolen or robbed of, and with WiFi you can set the camera to upload your pictures through your smartphone to the cloud immediately after they're taken, so no loss of precious memories, either.

 

[YuengLinger]

I suppose some hobbyists here may consider a $400 item "disposable." Those of us who believe this are very, very fortunate in the USA.

People who shop at Walmart are not some undesirable "crowd." They are doing the best they can to find goods at prices they can afford. To judge people by where they shop is as shallow a view of the world as can be imagined.

Such ideas grow like mildew in the brains of those who never tear themselves away from screens, whether in a D.C. office or their parents' basement.

Here's a link to an article from a year ago, "Why Half of Americans Can't Come up with $400 in an Emergency."

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/nearly-half-dont-have-the-cash-to-pay-for-a-400-emergency-fed-survey-finds-2017-05-19

 

[mistaspeedy]

There are also many people who have money, but photography is not high on their priority list at the moment. They are spending their money elsewhere. If Canon can get these people 'hooked', then they have done their job well.

 

[hkenneth]

No matter what, 4000D will not sell well in China simply because of the plastic mount. No matter how affordable it is.

 

[Richard CR]

Just to add, I was curious on how this forum would react versus how people were reacting to the article comments.

It's interesting to see the difference between the two. Over there, there's a lot more condemning happening and calling it garbage, piece of crapola, and the list shall go on. Here people seem for the most part seem to "get it".

Travelling around you get to see just how expensive $400 is around world, in a fair amount of places, that's an average monthly salary.

I found it ludicrous that every camera must inspire you, and every camera should be something you aspire to. Reality has to set in somewhere there.

I do think he has SOME valid points. Having a low end camera *without* a touchscreen is a valid point.

However if that's the case, then just about all manufacturer's should be condemned because most of them don't have low end models with touchscreens.

 

[nads]

Interesting... its almost a 40D in many of the specifications. That seemed pretty damn capable for what any new user would need at the time.

Oddly the 4000D is more SLR than I even own anymore haven gone completely to the M5 and sold the rest. Of course that blog would have to then consider me the lowest possible form of life with no redeeming qualities. I'm happy as a clam though.

 

[woodman411]

Just to add, I was curious on how this forum would react versus how people were reacting to the article comments.

It's interesting to see the difference between the two. Over there, there's a lot more condemning happening and calling it garbage, piece of crapola, and the list shall go on. Here people seem for the most part seem to "get it".

Travelling around you get to see just how expensive $400 is around world, in a fair amount of places, that's an average monthly salary.

I found it ludicrous that every camera must inspire you, and every camera should be something you aspire to. Reality has to set in somewhere there.

I do think he has SOME valid points. Having a low end camera *without* a touchscreen is a valid point.

However if that's the case, then just about all manufacturer's should be condemned because most of them don't have low end models with touchscreens.

Canon is the Toyota of cameras. Boring and lamented by enthusiasts (and you-tube "pros" and reviewers), but reliably and conservatively gets the job done like no one else. As fancy spec-wise as the Sony's are, ask yourself, would you ever see a 6-month old Canon flagship having a dial break like this Sony a9: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1532691/0

 

[Tremotino]

I'm not an expert in IPhone photography, but why is he comparing a dslr with an apsc sensor with a phone camera? Are phone cameras really that good?!
you can't even zoom nor holt it propertly in your hands and ovf is nonexisting.

My cheap china phone costs 110€ and does 95% what an Iphone does. with 1000€ I buy a nice lens not a smartphone

 

[Adelino]

This price point will inspire many new photographers lots of them will take amazing photos and development awesome skills. In the film days inexpensive cameras were beloved. I don't get why some people criticize products that are not intended for them.

 

[Talys]

Just to add, I was curious on how this forum would react versus how people were reacting to the article comments.

It's interesting to see the difference between the two. Over there, there's a lot more condemning happening and calling it garbage, piece of crapola, and the list shall go on. Here people seem for the most part seem to "get it".

Thanks for sharing the perspective Interesting!

I'm not an expert in IPhone photography, but why is he comparing a dslr with an apsc sensor with a phone camera? Are phone cameras really that good?!
you can't even zoom nor holt it propertly in your hands and ovf is nonexisting.

My cheap china phone costs 110€ and does 95% what an Iphone does. with 1000€ I buy a nice lens not a smartphone

Fixed aperture (or 2 apertures, if you buy an S9 ), very little control over exposure in general, not tripod friendly, no remote triggers, no ability to use off-camera flashes, no hotshoe, no ability to put a filter on the camera, very limited focal lengths, crappy storage... and oh, you can barely see the screen in daylight.

Are they convenient, and great devices? YES! But as a replacement for a real camera? Not even close.

This price point will inspire many new photographers lots of them will take amazing photos and development awesome skills. In the film days inexpensive cameras were beloved. I don't get why some people criticize products that are not intended for them.

Great point on how inexpensive cameras were much-loved in the days of film cameras!

 

[pvalpha]

$400 is fine. People have to start somewhere, and even if it doesn't do much, I'm going to wager what it *does* do it does perfectly well in its spec range. Canon is consistently #1. There is a reason for that, even if its not exciting or putting the latest tech in there.

I find it absurd that people would attack an entry level DSLR from a company known for its conservative yet consistent cameras and gripe about it being too barebones at a $400 price point. I'm sure that this camera is going to serve people for a decade or so, and its going to allow a lot of kids and adults to discover DSLR photography and introduce them to a system that will likely be around for the rest of their lives. YMMV.

 

[Maiaibing]

Several car manufacturers are churning out "cheap" models for third world country consumers - of which there are already many and many, many more to come. My guess is this camera is being made to entice some of these to become future Canon DSLR users.

Existing US/European/Japanese DSLR market opportunities seems pretty much saturated. In spite of years trying to bulk the trend Canon is nowhere near past sales numbers. Young people are simply not picking up DSLR's.

Canon needs to mobilise potential buyers in third world countries now to build a future market space for tomorrow. If they do not move decisively - these buyers may just skip DSLR's altogether. Probably a real risk already as mobile phones with cameras are pervasive amongst third world urban youths.

 

[unfocused]

I think the most amusing line was this one:

It’s time to make an aspirational camera. Otherwise, Canon and other camera companies will keep getting damaging headlines like this and this and this.

With links to reviews on their own website. "Yeah, Canon better do what we say or they are going to have to live with these 'damaging' headlines that we are writing."

I'm sure Canon is shaking in their boots afraid of getting more "damaging" headlines from some obscure site that their customers don't even know exists.

I'm not an expert in IPhone photography, but why is he comparing a dslr with an apsc sensor with a phone camera? Are phone cameras really that good?!

Yes, they are that good. If you use them properly they are incredible. They aren't for me, but college students who have grown up with smartphones have shown me videos and stills that they shoot that are amazing.

To the article, though, I agree with most of those commenting here. Canon clearly believes there is a market for this camera and Canon has a better sense of the market than any of us. I actually applaud them for taking the risk and innovating with an extremely low-cost camera. My only criticism is that they should be a bit more innovative about connectivity and ease of use. The big hurdle remains that you simply can't perform basic edits and share images on cameras as simply and intuitively as you can on smart phones. That's the problem manufacturers need to address in my view.

 

[Flack]

I’m thinking this would be the perfect entry level camera for my niece, she is getting into photography. I’d rather get this camera and invest in a new lens. What would you recommend for a first lens to go with this camera?