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

[TAF]

I think Canon has nailed another market segment...this is precisely what is needed to get the youngsters of today into more serious photography.

Entry level for sure, just as the XTi was my transition from film to digital (although film still hangs on, of course).

A decent camera (better than all but the most expensive phone) that is inexpensive enough that it can be treated as an expendable in the same way kids today treat their smartphones and other 'appliances', but adaptable/expandable to permit the budding enthusiast to try other things and (hopefully) get hooked on photography.

I see 'beach camera' written all over this. If it only lasts a season, the price should be low enough to ensure additional replacement sales.

It will also appear in numerous traffic enforcement devices (speed cameras etc.) and other unmanned gov't surveillance uses.

 

[snoke]

Cheap camera good camera.

Open camera studio, don't need expensive camera. Cheap camera plus lens and lighting. Keep lighting, maybe lens. To make print at 240ppi, 18MP or 24MP? Make many photos and many sales. Subject sit on chair. 4000D work like 1DX. No matter if not print, nobody need big studio picture for Internet.

 

[Talys]

Cheap camera good camera.

Open camera studio, don't need expensive camera. Cheap camera plus lens and lighting. Keep lighting, maybe lens. To make print at 240ppi, 18MP or 24MP? Make many photos and many sales. Subject sit on chair. 4000D work like 1DX. No matter if not print, nobody need big studio picture for Internet.

Exactly. Put a 50/1.8 or 100/2.8 on it for macro and ight it properly, and nobody will be able to tell or care if you used a $400 or $4000 camera

 

[nodelic]

This fstoppers article was pretty elitist, and very out of touch with the audience this camera is aimed at. A DSLR, no matter how low-quality, is still a really advanced piece of photographic technology for people just getting into photography.

I wish the 4000D had come out years ago. I used to have friends and family asking me for camera recommendations all the time, but even the most "basic" cameras were too far out of their price range. They'd settle for something like a low-quality point and shoot, and it was the awful experience with THOSE cameras that would turn them away from photography.

 

[stevelee]

Marie’s “Let them eat 1DX” article is not worth responding to, as many others have noted in their response to it. So here’s my response in the autobiographical vein others have used.

In the ‘50s there were box cameras around in our extended family, and my uncle gave me one of the Brownies and suggested that I set up a small darkroom to do contact printing from the relatively large negatives. There wasn’t much room for cropping, so I learned to compose the shots. The nature of the printing paper and proper exposure and development made gorgeous prints, more so than I was usually able to get later from enlarging. If I run across one those prints today, it still looks great.

In college I bought a Yashica rangefinder 35mm camera with a fixed 45mm lens. I started taking color slides. I made many of my all-time best pictures with that camera. I got really good at previsualizing the composition before I even picked up the camera. With slides of course, it has to be right when you push button. Film and processing cost a lot more than electrons do today. And I had a group of arty friends who insisted that I have a side show of each roll of slides before I had looked at them myself or edited anything out. They were supportive, encouraging, and merciless. I got better.

In graduate school I got my first SLR, an FT-QL, my first Canon. As friends were sent to Southeast Asia, they would send me back first the camera, and then over time an array of prime lenses. I set up a darkroom in my dorm room. I even processed some of my color slides, and made Cibachrome prints. The dorm had an ice machine, which helped me do water baths for temperature control. The processes with 1/2 degree tolerances were challenging during Dallas summers without air conditioning. I made enough stray income off of photography to support my habit, almost.

I bought my first digital camera in 2002 to take on a cruise to Alaska, Casio’s attempt to enter a higher end, with a Canon lens and an IBM drive for the memory slot. A 13” x 19” picture from Glacier Bay hangs on my wall yet today. I used film and the Canon after that only with a telescope a friend had passed on to me.

As I approached retirement and moving to this house, I knew I would need a washer and dryer and wanted to get a flat-screen TV. So one day I stopped by a store to look at both. While there I noticed what looked like a good deal on a Canon Xsi I think it was, with a couple of lenses. That impulse purchase got me my first DSLR. The telephoto wasn’t very sharp, and low-light pictures were noisy, but it took some good pictures. So eventually I replaced it with a T3i, and that was a noticeable improvement on many fronts. I last used it in August with that telephoto to shoot surprisingly good pictures of the eclipse. I had thought about getting an 80D the previous year, but decided the full frame would be my next step. So I followed the rumors here and elsewhere for much longer than expected waiting for the 6D2. I have enjoyed that camera much more than I expected, even though already ignoring all the online naysaying here and elsewhere.

Still, I take most of my pictures while traveling, and I use my G7X II for that, having replaced the S95 and then the S120. Call them point and shoots if you like, but shooting RAW with manual controls, exposure compensation, and bracketing hardly seems like it. I have large prints from all three of those on my walls, too.

So if anyone has managed to plow through all this biography and has stayed awake to this point, perhaps you can easily see what I would think of that article if I bothered to read it. And if not, at least I haven’t insulted other posters.

 

[9VIII]

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.

 

[Valvebounce]

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.

 

[old-pr-pix]

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.

 

[Jester74]

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.

 

[NancyP]

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]

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]

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.

 

[unfocused]

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.

 

[dak723]

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.

 

[LDS]

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]

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:

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]

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]

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.

 

[Don Haines]

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.......

 

[unfocused]

...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.