Here's the Canon EOS 4000D, A New Entry Level DSLR

[SkynetTX]

I've just checked the pictures again and it seems that we have a built-in flash but the flash button is missing. Does that mean that the flash will fire automatically in every shooting mode in low light conditions? And if we have a 2000D and 4000D with these specifications what can we expect from a 5000D? Will it have automatic modes only for the point and shoot users who would like to upgrade to a professional looking camera and think that photography means that you press the shutter release button?

 

[Sharlin]

I've just checked the pictures again and it seems that we have a built-in flash but the flash button is missing. Does that mean that the flash will fire automatically in every shooting mode in low light conditions?

If you take a closer look it appears to have ”tabs” presumably allowing you to raise the flash manually.

 

[LDS]

And if we have a 2000D and 4000D with these specifications what can we expect from a 5000D? Will it have automatic modes only for the point and shoot users who would like to upgrade to a professional looking camera and think that photography means that you press the shutter release button?

It would be the true heir of the T50.... when Canon tried exactly that approach, thirty-five years ago

 

[dak723]

And most people who buy these have the false illusion that they will be able to take professional looking photos just by pointing and shooting on auto mode, then be very disappointed when the photos turn out to be inferior to what they get in their smartphones because the phones do a much better automatic processing job to get the best out of the colors and dynamic range.

False illusion? An 18 MP camera is far more capable than most people will ever need in taking professional looking photos. I took many professional looking photos with my old 6 MP rebel. My 18 MP SL1 took professional looking photos that were indistinguishable from those professional looking photos that I took with my 6D. Get a grip, in terms of IQ, camera tech has not changed much in the last 10 years.

 

[slclick]

And most people who buy these have the false illusion that they will be able to take professional looking photos just by pointing and shooting on auto mode, then be very disappointed when the photos turn out to be inferior to what they get in their smartphones because the phones do a much better automatic processing job to get the best out of the colors and dynamic range.

False illusion? An 18 MP camera is far more capable than most people will ever need in taking professional looking photos. I took many professional looking photos with my old 6 MP rebel. My 18 MP SL1 took professional looking photos that were indistinguishable from those professional looking photos that I took with my 6D. Get a grip, in terms of IQ, camera tech has not changed much in the last 10 years.

Yes folks with common sense and who have used cameras for longer than Sony has been making FF bodies know that but it's difficult to impress such logic on those who have spent and have to convince themselves that their purchase was somehow taking them to another realm.

 

[Mancubus]

And most people who buy these have the false illusion that they will be able to take professional looking photos just by pointing and shooting on auto mode, then be very disappointed when the photos turn out to be inferior to what they get in their smartphones because the phones do a much better automatic processing job to get the best out of the colors and dynamic range.

False illusion? An 18 MP camera is far more capable than most people will ever need in taking professional looking photos. I took many professional looking photos with my old 6 MP rebel. My 18 MP SL1 took professional looking photos that were indistinguishable from those professional looking photos that I took with my 6D. Get a grip, in terms of IQ, camera tech has not changed much in the last 10 years.

It's not about what people will ever need, it's about tricking them. I am a professional and if my 5D3 breaks I could do my job with a 600D and most people wouldn't notice the difference. The 5D3 is just much better to use but the output is almost the same.

However, people buy these "entry level" cameras thinking they're actually getting a good deal and will be able to take better photos. I feel bad for these people, they're being tricked because Canon keeps pushing these ancient sensors in new bodies that have are barely different from each other.

No camera can save a bad photographer, but there could at least be some software improvements like mobile phone companies have been doing. It would be totally awesome if we had a "smart" camera that could read the situation and do an automatic processing just like the new Iphone/Galaxy cameras but using an APS-C sized sensor.

I've lost count on how many people buy an entry level DSLR, get excited for a week thinking they're taking great photos (hideous actually), and after the hype is gone they end up never using it again.

 

[Don Haines]

And most people who buy these have the false illusion that they will be able to take professional looking photos just by pointing and shooting on auto mode, then be very disappointed when the photos turn out to be inferior to what they get in their smartphones because the phones do a much better automatic processing job to get the best out of the colors and dynamic range.

False illusion? An 18 MP camera is far more capable than most people will ever need in taking professional looking photos. I took many professional looking photos with my old 6 MP rebel. My 18 MP SL1 took professional looking photos that were indistinguishable from those professional looking photos that I took with my 6D. Get a grip, in terms of IQ, camera tech has not changed much in the last 10 years.

The nicest picture that I have ever taken was with a 1.3 megapixel P/S camera.....

 

[snegri45]

Starting with the original 6 Mpix Digital Rebel I lived professionally off Rebels for eight years until I stepped into the 5D world where I now use the SR, the IV, and the III. In fifteen years we have gone from 6 mpix to 50 while acceptable ISO has gone from 200 to 6400. Frame rates have gotten way higher. Our cameras have become vastly more capable and we have surely benefitted from that.

While I understand that the forum denizens here are knowledgable and passionate, occasionally I feel there is a bit of tech snobbery evident here: "Oh my God! Canon is still selling stone age 18 Megapixel cameras! The horror of it all! And the horrendous kit lenses... Canon is doomed forever..."

The T2i and T3i were my two 18 Mpix go-to professional use cameras for a few years. With battery grips, 580EX IIs on top, mounted with a 17-55/2.8 and a Sigma 50-150/2.8, no-one accused me of imitating a professional while using the same camera Uncle Freddy had. And with careful work on my part, my customers always seemed happy with the quality of my pictures. I have 15 L lenses, 10 of them white, many from my film days. Coupled with my various 5D cameras I have the top rate tools to produce and deliver work of the highest technical quality. And I do pixel-peep!

Yet the vast majority of my non-assignment pictures over a number of years now have been shot with a (lowly 18 Mpix) SL1 (recently replaced with the SL2) and the three plastic mount kit lenses; 10-18, 18-55, and 55-250 (all now STM), as well as a nifty fifty (originally also plastic-mounted.) And that rig has produced outstanding pictures. These lenses are very, very good! They might be plasticky, they might have a bit of distortion, and the sharpness may fall off a bit in the corners, but they sure represent by far the best bang for the buck in all the photo universe. I recently shot the same scene with the SL2/55-250 and the 5D III/100-400 L combinations. The photos were nearly un-dishtinguishable. Given that the first rig can be had for $ 700, and the second cost me (some years back) $ 4,900, I say Canon is doing a bang up job!

Since I am clearly not privy to Canon's strategic thinking, I cannot say what the intended market for a 4000D might be. But I certainly feel that when you get a person away from the cellphone wide-angle lens and into an APS-C camera with a quite good zoom they will absolutely like their pictures a whole lot better! And if Canon can sell cameras using fully depreciated tooling and components I think we will all benefit in the long run.

 

[snegri45]

Slight addendum to my post: The interior shot was with the 10-18mm at 10mm, wide open at ISO 160. I am going to try to attach a portrait I shot at a Broncolor demo at Adorama yesterday. Long kit zoom at 250mm, again wide open with ISO 3200.

 

[stevelee]

I fail to understand how anybody is being tricked. Nobody is going to expect it to be exactly the same as a $3500 camera. And people who need a more expensive camera know who they are. Or they will learn on an entry level camera, and one of the things that they might learn is why they would want or need a more expensive camera.

18 MP is not going to get you street cred on a gearhead forum and is not something a teen is going to brag to his date about. But it is plenty of resolution for you to do some cropping and still print out a great 11 x 14. And the camera will allow more control than most people will want to bother with.

"Honey, this $300 camera will turn you into Ansel Adams," says nobody.

 

[Adelino]

And most people who buy these have the false illusion that they will be able to take professional looking photos just by pointing and shooting on auto mode, then be very disappointed when the photos turn out to be inferior to what they get in their smartphones because the phones do a much better automatic processing job to get the best out of the colors and dynamic range.

False illusion? An 18 MP camera is far more capable than most people will ever need in taking professional looking photos. I took many professional looking photos with my old 6 MP rebel. My 18 MP SL1 took professional looking photos that were indistinguishable from those professional looking photos that I took with my 6D. Get a grip, in terms of IQ, camera tech has not changed much in the last 10 years.

The nicest picture that I have ever taken was with a 1.3 megapixel P/S camera.....

Will you post it here?

 

[Talys]

And most people who buy these have the false illusion that they will be able to take professional looking photos just by pointing and shooting on auto mode, then be very disappointed when the photos turn out to be inferior to what they get in their smartphones because the phones do a much better automatic processing job to get the best out of the colors and dynamic range.

False illusion? An 18 MP camera is far more capable than most people will ever need in taking professional looking photos. I took many professional looking photos with my old 6 MP rebel. My 18 MP SL1 took professional looking photos that were indistinguishable from those professional looking photos that I took with my 6D. Get a grip, in terms of IQ, camera tech has not changed much in the last 10 years.

To be totally fair, he did say, get pro quality photos "just by pointing and shooting in auto mode", and in the context of comparing it to a smartphone camera. The problem is, there is no camera in the world, whether it's a 1DXII, A7R3 or t2i that lets you do that.

Photography is light, composition, and sometimes, capturing a moment. If you're just pointing and shooting your camera, whether it's a smartphone, A7R3, 1DXII or 4000D, you'll get one of those elements if you're lucky, very rarely two, and practically never all three.

To get a portrait that's amazing that someone would pay good money for -- a quality that's much more "professional" than a smartphone picture doesn't require a $3000 camera. You can do it with a t2i with a consumer grade zoom. You just need some off-camera lighting (the cheapest flashes will do), some basic light modifiers (cheap umbrellas will do), and knowledge to know how to direct your subject and move yourself to produce a flattering pose.

But take all that away, and give someone who doesn't care to learn about portraiture a $3000 camera and $2000 lens and $600 flash, and they'll still take pictures that are only marginally better than what they get out of their smartphone. Just because they can give an under or over exposed picture a modicum of color doesn't make it a professional photograph.

 

[9VIII]

And most people who buy these have the false illusion that they will be able to take professional looking photos just by pointing and shooting on auto mode, then be very disappointed when the photos turn out to be inferior to what they get in their smartphones because the phones do a much better automatic processing job to get the best out of the colors and dynamic range.

False illusion? An 18 MP camera is far more capable than most people will ever need in taking professional looking photos. I took many professional looking photos with my old 6 MP rebel. My 18 MP SL1 took professional looking photos that were indistinguishable from those professional looking photos that I took with my 6D. Get a grip, in terms of IQ, camera tech has not changed much in the last 10 years.

It's not about what people will ever need, it's about tricking them. I am a professional and if my 5D3 breaks I could do my job with a 600D and most people wouldn't notice the difference. The 5D3 is just much better to use but the output is almost the same.

However, people buy these "entry level" cameras thinking they're actually getting a good deal...

Except that they are.
Any EOS body is worth more than every P&S ever made, getting this ecosystem to the lowest price possible is doing everyone a huge favor.

Anyone who is gifted one of these will at least have a chance of being able to learn photography.

 

[Hector1970]

Looks like a reheated version of a Canon APS-C from 10 years ago but all plastic including the mount.
If it’s really cheap it might be a handy backup camera.
Maybe Canon hope it will get people into DSLRs and get addicted to buying lens.
Like a drug dealer giving free samples.
I think it will cannibalize their lower end cameras.
The margins will be so low I couldn’t see it worthwhile unless they see Massive volume in high populated countries that aren’t buying DSLRs.

 

[Talys]

Looks like a reheated version of a Canon APS-C from 10 years ago but all plastic including the mount.
If it’s really cheap it might be a handy backup camera.
Maybe Canon hope it will get people into DSLRs and get addicted to buying lens.
Like a drug dealer giving free samples.
I think it will cannibalize their lower end cameras.
The margins will be so low I couldn’t see it worthwhile unless they see Massive volume in high populated countries that aren’t buying DSLRs.

The biggest thing keeping me from using t2i as a backup camera after I got into xxD bodies is the battery. It's such a pain having another charger and another battery type.