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

[Ryananthony]

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.

The whole article was a joke. And if what I hear is true and that all the parts on this camera are recycled (I haven't looked into it much since I'm not in the market for something like this) then I would like to assume this camera did not cost Canon very much to create. If so, I would also like to assume profit margin would be pleasing. If it doesn't sell, they are not losing much, if it does, then everyone is full of smiles.

 

[tmroper]

I held onto a Rebel I bought back in 2008 or so, and take it out (along with a 50mm 1.8) when it's pouring down rain and I still want to try from some interesting photos. Not sure what I'll do when it stops working, but I might buy a cheapo body like this. Nothing wrong with not wanting to stress out about damaging a $3000 piece of equipment.

 

[jeffa4444]

My first camera was a Russian Seagull camera with a 50mm lens a dirt cheap product that taught me the fundamentals of photography. My second was a Canon FTb at the time this was expensive given my salary but it set me on the Canon road Ive stayed on for SLRs / DSLRs ever since.

The guy is a plank (fool).

 

[NancyP]

Another use is for radio-synchronized multi-camera set-ups.

And there is a funny item out at petapixel about a photographer who put a radio-controlled APS-C DSLR camera and 8 mm fisheye (the cheapest one, from Samyang/Rokinon/etc) 300 ft from the launch pad at Cape Canaveral. Cool photos, but lens got trashed from the exhaust.

Experiment with full spectrum, infrared, UV modifications requiring replacement of the camera's own hot filter. eg: http://www.spencerscamera.com/full-spectrum-cameras.cfm (not endorsing this place, no experience with it, it simply was the first website to come up in the "mod-your-DSLR" search).

Plenty of uses for cheaper cameras - not just beginner / student fodder.

 

[Etienne]

Sony releases a relatively cheap full-frame mirrorless monster ... the A7 III ... for $2000.
at the same time....
Canon releases an utterly boring rerun among other reruns ...

... I can understand a reactionary article to vent off frustration at Canons absence at the frontier of innovation in bodies

 

[ritholtz]

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.

I am not sure if it is coming to America. It might be targeted for markets where gear is every expensive for some reason (weak currency and taxes). It is similar to those cheap Chinese phones. In this case, Canon is filling in for both the roles. I think, yongnuo or some one might be trying to build cheap EF mount compatible cameras. Canon is trying to discourage them.

 

[dak723]

Sony releases a relatively cheap full-frame mirrorless monster ... the A7 III ... for $2000.
at the same time....
Canon releases an utterly boring rerun among other reruns ...

... I can understand a reactionary article to vent off frustration at Canons absence at the frontier of innovation in bodies

And far more people will buy the Canon, so what is your point?

 

[old-pr-pix]

Let's face it, 'real' camera sales are still in decline. CIPA data shows ILC 2018 forecast down at 11.3 million units. Just prior to explosion of digital, the peak sales of film ILC's hit about 4 million units a year - digital won't go that low, but how low??? Big box stores reflect the trend - cameras are no longer 'main isle' items and shelf space has been dramatically reduced. Cameras are in the back corner and sharing 6' shelf with residual disposable cameras. Smart phones now have the prime spots. (Exception: Best Buy which has excellent displays) CIPA shows 1.6 to 1.7 ratio of lenses to bodies - likely half of buyers only have one lens, others bought the two zoom lens kit. Costco now sells SL2 as 3 lens kit - 18-55, 55-250 and 50mm f1.8 'portrait' lens. Latest phones claim 'similar' capability with one device and lots of software. CR readers know it's not the same, but it's good enough to sell lots of folks. And, in reality, most people don't want to deal with changing lenses.

The 4000D is an effort to keep the cash-cow machines running making mirror boxes and older sensors while Canon prepares for shift to mirrorless. Comments above about need to also shift to better in camera connectivity and additional software features are definitely on-target.

 

[Valvebounce]

Hi hkenneth.
So you are saying that the Chinese are quite happy to sell “all made of plastic” to the rest of the world but how dare we try the same on them? Although I do find it kind of ironic that they have just put the metal mount back on the plastic fantastic nifty fifty STM.
I do think that the cheap camera body has its merits though I have allocated my old 20D (I think the magnesium body might resist accidents better) to my now 6yr old nephew to learn on, for now the Auto mode is great it reliably gets him good usable photos to keep him interested until he wants to learn how to change the look. I guess if there was no handmedown camera available it would come down to risking unknown used or this one.

Cheers, Graham.

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

 

[Don Haines]

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

because nobody with a disposable income under $100,000 EVER buys something with plastic....

right.....

 

[9VIII]

Alot of people who buy this camera may never buy anything other than the kit lens.

That describes 99% of the market across all systems at almost all price brackets.

Just buying a second lens nearly qualifies someone as an enthusiast.

 

[9VIII]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Canon could build an EOS body out of cardboard and it would still be better than every smartphone camera or P&S ever made.

Point and Shoot cameras never should have existed at all.

Anything that is compatible with the EOS ecosystem is better than pretty much everything that isn’t.
(I’d say the same for Nikon, but they just get a slightly softer recommendation.)

 

[mpphoto]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Canon could build an EOS body out of cardboard and it would still be better than every smartphone camera or P&S ever made.

Point and Shoot cameras never should have existed at all.

Anything that is compatible with the EOS ecosystem is better than pretty much everything that isn’t.
(I’d say the same for Nikon, but they just get a slightly softer recommendation.)

That's a foolish statement. I shoot professionally now. How did I end up here? I started at 8 years old using point-and-shoot cameras. In a way, I'm Canon's dream customer. After using Kodak point-and-shoot film cameras, I bought a Canon PowerShot A70. Then a PowerShot S5 IS. Then an EOS Rebel T3i. Then a 60D. Then a 5D Mark III. Then a 5D Mark IV. I gradually moved up the product ladder as my skills and finances improved. I didn't abandon point-and-shoots either, buying a G15 and then a G7 X Mark II, because a DSLR or even an M5 won't fit in a pocket.

I bought that T3i with the 18-55 and 55-250 in a kit for $600. I knew I enjoyed photography, but I wasn't sure if I enjoyed it enough to spend a huge amount of money (not that $600 isn't a lot). I had very little DSLR experience and I didn't know if I would enjoy the camera either. These are the people who will be looking at the 4000D. They're people who don't know if they want to make a big investment, or people who can't make a big investment. That humble T3i kit led to years of GAS and many cameras (I didn't list every one I have owned) and many lenses.

That PowerShot A70 point-and-shoot that "never should have existed" led to me investing heavily in the Canon ecosystem and turning a hobby into a job. Not all point-and-shoots are crap, and they definitely serve a purpose. A 1D X and 24-70 f/2.8 isn't the right tool for every situation and every photographer. Canon and most of its customers know that.

Affordable products are necessary for students and hobbyists to get involved in photography. The "you can buy a used camera that is better" argument has holes. Some people don't want to buy used. They feel buying used is buying someone else's problems. Also, a total n00b has no idea what used model to buy or what signs of damage to look for. Buying new is the easy and safe bet - recent design and tech, and it shouldn't break anytime soon. Yeah, the 4000D has older tech, but it will be clean and won't have 100,000 actuations on the shutter when you buy it new at Walmart or Best Buy.

If the only cameras on the market were the 5D and 1D when I was looking for my first DSLR, I probably wouldn't be the photographer I am now. Point-and-shoots and entry-level DSLRs are essential parts of a product lineup.

 

[Ryananthony]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Canon could build an EOS body out of cardboard and it would still be better than every smartphone camera or P&S ever made.

Point and Shoot cameras never should have existed at all.

Anything that is compatible with the EOS ecosystem is better than pretty much everything that isn’t.
(I’d say the same for Nikon, but they just get a slightly softer recommendation.)

That's a foolish statement. I shoot professionally now. How did I end up here? I started at 8 years old using point-and-shoot cameras. In a way, I'm Canon's dream customer. After using Kodak point-and-shoot film cameras, I bought a Canon PowerShot A70. Then a PowerShot S5 IS. Then an EOS Rebel T3i. Then a 60D. Then a 5D Mark III. Then a 5D Mark IV. I gradually moved up the product ladder as my skills and finances improved. I didn't abandon point-and-shoots either, buying a G15 and then a G7 X Mark II, because a DSLR or even an M5 won't fit in a pocket.

I bought that T3i with the 18-55 and 55-250 in a kit for $600. I knew I enjoyed photography, but I wasn't sure if I enjoyed it enough to spend a huge amount of money (not that $600 isn't a lot). I had very little DSLR experience and I didn't know if I would enjoy the camera either. These are the people who will be looking at the 4000D. They're people who don't know if they want to make a big investment, or people who can't make a big investment. That humble T3i kit led to years of GAS and many cameras (I didn't list every one I have owned) and many lenses.

That PowerShot A70 point-and-shoot that "never should have existed" led to me investing heavily in the Canon ecosystem and turning a hobby into a job. Not all point-and-shoots are crap, and they definitely serve a purpose. A 1D X and 24-70 f/2.8 isn't the right tool for every situation and every photographer. Canon and most of its customers know that.

Affordable products are necessary for students and hobbyists to get involved in photography. The "you can buy a used camera that is better" argument has holes. Some people don't want to buy used. They feel buying used is buying someone else's problems. Also, a total n00b has no idea what used model to buy or what signs of damage to look for. Buying new is the easy and safe bet - recent design and tech, and it shouldn't break anytime soon. Yeah, the 4000D has older tech, but it will be clean and won't have 100,000 actuations on the shutter when you buy it new at Walmart or Best Buy.

If the only cameras on the market were the 5D and 1D when I was looking for my first DSLR, I probably wouldn't be the photographer I am now. Point-and-shoots and entry-level DSLRs are essential parts of a product lineup.

My first camera was a T3. I bought it because it was the cheapest dslr I could buy before I went on a trip. 1000's and 1000's of dollars later here I am. Looks like Canon did something right.

 

[Don Haines]

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Canon could build an EOS body out of cardboard and it would still be better than every smartphone camera or P&S ever made.

Point and Shoot cameras never should have existed at all.

Anything that is compatible with the EOS ecosystem is better than pretty much everything that isn’t.
(I’d say the same for Nikon, but they just get a slightly softer recommendation.)

I wonder how many us started digital photography with a P/S camera?

Also, there are a lot of people in my camera club who shoot with superzooms, and some who shoot with iPhones.

My camera kit still includes a P/S camera. The Olympus TG-4.... which survives repeated immersion in water FAR better than any Canon DSLR...

 

[Richard CR]

Let's face it, 'real' camera sales are still in decline. CIPA data shows ILC 2018 forecast down at 11.3 million units.

They only did 11.67 last year and that was with a bumped up first quarter because of the earthquake.

it's also not much of a tactical shift for Canon. They had added new automation to their camera factory(ies) and certainly have the technology and manufacturing leverage to come out with a cheap camera.

Canon's been aggressively adding lines to it's portfolio for years now:

The 4000D is an effort to keep the cash-cow machines running making mirror boxes and older sensors while Canon prepares for shift to mirrorless.

I don't think Canon will shift versus Canon will augment. I wouldn't be surprised to see Canon hit around 20-22 lines by 2020.

 

[s87343jim]

My problem with the product is that it is just so similar to Canon 550D which you can find second hand in good condition dirt cheap price, better construction...etc. Only thing that is missing is Wifi, which doesn't work that well in real life.

 

[yjchua95]

Point and Shoot cameras never should have existed at all.

This is wrong on so many levels.

You could give a EOS 1Dx Mark II to a kid who's never touched a camera before, and I guarantee you the results would end up being worse than some of the stuff I shoot with just an iPhone.

A Nokia N95 back in 2007 (when I was just 12) got me started into photography. 3 years later, I got my first DSLR (500D/T1i with an 18-55), before moving to two 60Ds and now a 6D Mark II (and much better lenses).

If it wasn't for that Nokia N95, I wouldn't even have gotten into photography, because I would have been put off by the weight/size and complexity at that time (and age).

There must always be a simple and easy option for first-timers. Learn how to crawl before you walk.

 

[yjchua95]

My problem with the product is that it is just so similar to Canon 550D which you can find second hand in good condition dirt cheap price, better construction...etc. Only thing that is missing is Wifi, which doesn't work that well in real life.

Except that the EOS 550D was on the upper end of the entry level Canon DSLR range during its time back in 2010.

Back in 2010, the EOS 1000D was the runt of the entry level range and the EOS 550D was at the top of the entry level range.

Today, the EOS 4000D has taken the spot of the EOS 1000D, while the EOS 800D has taken the same spot as where the EOS 550D was in 2010.

So I'd say that the EOS 4000D has come a long way in its spot, by incorporating the stuff from its older siblings in higher end spots.

Side note - the 'runt' spot has actually diverged into the EOS 2000D and the EOS 4000D. The EOS 2000D is the direct successor to the EOS 1300D (which itself occupied the 'runt' spot for its time), while the EOS 4000D is actually one step lower than 'runt'.

 

[mb66energy]

"your inspiration should come from photography and not the camera itself"

This remark from Richard says all to me: If a camera with appropriate IQ and ergonomics is in reach, it is better than some ultra high IQ and ergonomic cameras which is as far as Mars. If you have 400$ to spend a 1Dx ii is as far as Mars to you.

While I would prefer a 2nd hand body like EOS 40D there are a lot of people who do not want to risk to buy a 2nd hand camera - I can understand this behavior of a newcomer very well.