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



## canonnews (Mar 2, 2018)

```
<p>Fstoppers’s Wasim Ahmad posted an <a href="https://fstoppers.com/originals/canons-4000d-and-race-bottom-photographers-hearts-and-minds-226103">article</a> today on the 4000D, Canon’s new entry level of entry level cameras.</p>
<p>Needless to say, he’s pretty put out over Canon coming out with a brand new camera for under $400 dollars.</p>
<blockquote><p>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? It’s time to make an aspirational camera.</p></blockquote>
<p>I have problems personally with this article.   For starters, not every camera should be a inspirational camera in the industry and secondly, your inspiration should come from photography and not the camera itself.   Giving a youngster a unbreakable piece of plastic camera that they can toss around that doesn’t cost alot of money – isn’t a bad idea to fuel inspiration.  The article also tends to ignore the fact that not everyone can afford a Google Pixel 2 or a Apple XL with a high end computational camera, and a camera that costs around 1/3 of a top end phone fits in some people’s budget far better.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong, I’d never purchase a 4000D for myself, but I may consider it for my grandson when he gets a little older.  This or a M100 styled camera, he may have alot of fun with.  Inspiring his creativity I think is very important.</p>
<p>Thoughts? I’d love to hear them in the forum.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## slclick (Mar 2, 2018)

High School and Community College photo instructors will go ape over this. I can see the requisition forms being filled out already. Like good shots, opportunities are always missed when your mind is closed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 2, 2018)

[quote author=Wasim Ahmad]
Products _Blog posts_ like these show a fundamental misunderstanding of the camera market today.
[/quote]

Fixed that for him.


----------



## canonnews (Mar 2, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> [quote author=Wasim Ahmad]
> Products _Blog posts_ like these show a fundamental misunderstanding of the camera market today.



Fixed that for him.
[/quote]

LMAO.

Gold.


----------



## DogpackChris (Mar 2, 2018)

Completely agree. Inspiration doesn't need bells and whistles or the latest and greatest. I still get inspiration from the original M and the 22 f2.


----------



## Batman6794 (Mar 2, 2018)

The article could be cut down a bit. I think you could capture the whole thing with the following.

"Yet again Canon has released a camera aimed at someone other than me. When will they wake up?"


----------



## BillB (Mar 2, 2018)

A blogger's is going to blog.


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 2, 2018)

Big news would be if FStoppers became relevant again.


----------



## LDS (Mar 2, 2018)

These are evidently not cameras for for the GAS addicted ones. Not everybody starts photography with a $1000+ cameras and lenses. Used ones may not be easily available everywhere, may look too complex, and there's always the risk of a dud.

I can see a market in:

1) Developing countries.
2) True beginners looking for a cheap cameras to start with.
3) Cash constrained people who still wants a reflex, for whatever reason.

Of course no one will probably ever attach a 100-400 to them (if not for fun), and anyway, with heavy lenses I'm careful about how I handle them even with sturdier cameras. Canon talked about different kits - maybe the 18-55 won't be the only lens sold with. Some of the design choices of course would be unbelievable at a different price point, but they fit the strategy.

The blog also doesn't understand that in the phone market models equivalent to these cameras do exist and sell (although their margins are very thin) - if he believes everybody buys an iPhone X, Google Pixel or Samsung S9 he doesn't understand that market too. The cheap Android phones have not the components quality and processing power to deliver the same images the high-end ones do.

Google even launched the "GO edition" of Android 8 to allow low-end phones to run a slimmed down version - because it too knows the bottom line is important to bring people into its platform, and I think Canon is trying to achieve something alike. Maybe we'll see a M4000 also. 

If he also believes software processing can do everything, he will find software is able to do only what it is already programmed for - even with AI which just undergoes more sophisticated training. And when it is pushed out of its envelop it could fail big. Even Google acknowledges its "Portrait mode" is far from being perfect, and fails with subjects it don't recognize, being trained on faces only. And anyway, you'll be bound to what the software thinks is right, not what to achieve. That is not an issue for the snapshot crowd taking the same photos over and over - those who wish to learn and start to control their images could find this camera useful, of course if they take it out from the Auto/Scene modes.


----------



## Jon509 (Mar 2, 2018)

He said ASpirational, not INspirational....this is a camera that phone users and other beginners could ASPIRE to, and hopefully realize the benefits of a traditional camera form-factor and system...

Jon in Chicago


----------



## NancyP (Mar 2, 2018)

This is a great starter camera. There is a market for this, if only for attracting young people to non-phone photography. And getting the next generation interested is the key to keeping a healthy ILC market.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 2, 2018)

I see it as a opportunity for those who are not wealthy or able to afford higher end equipment. Everyone has to start somewhere, and this opens up opportunities for tomorrows photographers. Those who do well with it may move to high end models if they see a benefit and can afford one. In any event, they will have a big step up from a point and shoot, and possibly at a lower cost.

As someone noted, photography classes which require a point and shoot costing $400 or more may move to cameras like this, or at least put them on a suggested list.


----------



## lwan (Mar 2, 2018)

Your point about a cheap DSLR for a kid, I get it perfectly. Makes sense.
The 4000D wouldn't be a problem if the high end bodies were stellar, but they aren't.
There is a market between the 1D and the 3 of 4 digits lines that is simply not happy at all with what they get (compared to what the competition has to offer _right now_).


----------



## Talys (Mar 2, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I see it as a opportunity for those who are not wealthy or able to afford higher end equipment. Everyone has to start somewhere, and this opens up opportunities for tomorrows photographers. Those who do well with it may move to high end models if they see a benefit and can afford one. In any event, they will have a big step up from a point and shoot, and possibly at a lower cost.



Well said


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 2, 2018)

Wondering if he is buying innovative and exciting Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8L Macro lens priced at $2000+ along with all those iPhone users?


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 2, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I see it as a opportunity for those who are not wealthy or able to afford higher end equipment. Everyone has to start somewhere, and this opens up opportunities for tomorrows photographers. Those who do well with it may move to high end models if they see a benefit and can afford one. In any event, they will have a big step up from a point and shoot, and possibly at a lower cost.
> 
> As someone noted, photography classes which require a point and shoot costing $400 or more may move to cameras like this, or at least put them on a suggested list.


And also in some countries photographic equipment is very expensive in relative terms with all those taxes. Cameras like this have better chance of attracting main street buyers with their price points. It is like all those cheap Chinese phones selling like crazy. Does it have same 80d sensor with dpaf?


----------



## Helmski (Mar 2, 2018)

No doubt that this camera will resonate with some, but I would argue, those coming into the fold of ILC's would make their way regardless of this model. I have not heard a compelling argument as to why this will bring in the next generation of photographers. eBay, hand-me-down, refurb, good camera phones, have been around much longer then this new camera. The Next generation is currently being given access/experience to Smartphone cameras that can produce wonderful results, as well as being able to experiment with apps and settings. Dials and knobs don't necessarily interest the next gen. Nor are most newcomers interested/patient in setting the camera up for the best shot or taking the time to gain experience. The next generations that come to the ILC playground will have their expectations dashed with this no-frills video gimped model. 
IF canon was really interested in the next generations, more then they are in maintaining the status quo, they would produce an intuitive new design with touch menus that guide/teach you how to produce better compositions.


----------



## slclick (Mar 2, 2018)

lwan said:


> Your point about a cheap DSLR for a kid, I get it perfectly. Makes sense.
> The 4000D wouldn't be a problem if the high end bodies were stellar, but they aren't.
> There is a market between the 1D and the 3 of 4 digits lines that is simply not happy at all with what they get (compared to what the competition has to offer _right now_).



No one said it's a problem...because it's not. Making correlations between top of the line and bottom? You've really got nothing there except an urge to gripe it seems. Who btw isn't happy? Online reviewers? Next.


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 2, 2018)

I've no problem with Canon producing a 4000D.
It's a good camera for beginners. It seems to be like a 500D from 8 years ago.
I'm not sure if its a great thing for Canon though.
It depends on whether the profit margin is.
I'd expect they'll sell quite a few but it will cannibalise the existing lower end cameras.
It would be fine as an emergency backup camera.
Canon probably hope it will sell more lens.
It is though in danger of being a race to the bottom. 
Alot of people who buy this camera may never buy anything other than the kit lens.


----------



## SkynetTX (Mar 2, 2018)

I had many cameras in the last years before I bought the 1200D at the end of 2015. The first lenses were the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 kit lens and the 60mm f/2.8 macro lens. Both the camera and the kitlens are great to start with. If I had more money at the time I'd probably bought a 24-70mm lens but I could not afford it. Those who will buy the 4000D will not buy the Canon 100-400mm as their first lens and those who can buy the 100-400mm as the first lens will not buy the 4000D as the first camera so there no problem with the plastic mount.
Smartphone cameras are better now than few years ago but a 4000D (or any APS-C) has a sensor that is 21 times larger so no smartphone can come close to them. Canon should probably put newer sensors and processors in some of the entry level cameras but these would cost more. But the quality of the photos you take does not depend solely on the camera but also on how you use it.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 2, 2018)

canonnews said:


> 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 (Mar 2, 2018)

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


----------



## Sharlin (Mar 2, 2018)

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 (Mar 2, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> 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 (Mar 2, 2018)

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 (Mar 2, 2018)

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 (Mar 2, 2018)

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 (Mar 2, 2018)

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 (Mar 2, 2018)

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 (Mar 2, 2018)

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


----------



## canonnews (Mar 2, 2018)

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 (Mar 2, 2018)

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 (Mar 2, 2018)

canonnews said:


> 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".
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 2, 2018)

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 (Mar 2, 2018)

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 (Mar 2, 2018)

canonnews said:


> 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!



Tremotino said:


> 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.



Adelino said:


> 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 (Mar 2, 2018)

$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 (Mar 2, 2018)

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 (Mar 2, 2018)

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.



Tremotino said:


> 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 (Mar 2, 2018)

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?


----------



## Ryananthony (Mar 2, 2018)

unfocused said:


> I think the most amusing line was this one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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 (Mar 3, 2018)

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 (Mar 3, 2018)

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 (Mar 3, 2018)

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 (Mar 3, 2018)

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 (Mar 3, 2018)

AuroraChaserDoug said:


> 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 (Mar 3, 2018)

Etienne said:


> 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 (Mar 3, 2018)

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 (Mar 3, 2018)

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. 



hkenneth said:


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


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 3, 2018)

hkenneth said:


> 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 (Mar 3, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> 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 (Mar 3, 2018)

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 (Mar 3, 2018)

9VIII said:


> 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.*
> 
> ...


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 (Mar 3, 2018)

mpphoto said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Mar 3, 2018)

9VIII said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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...


----------



## canonnews (Mar 3, 2018)

old-pr-pix said:


> 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:








old-pr-pix said:


> 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 (Mar 3, 2018)

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 (Mar 3, 2018)

9VIII said:


> 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 (Mar 3, 2018)

s87343jim said:


> 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 (Mar 3, 2018)

*"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.


----------



## C-A430 (Mar 3, 2018)

Helmski said:


> No doubt that this camera will resonate with some, but I would argue, those coming into the fold of ILC's would make their way regardless of this model. I have not heard a compelling argument as to why this will bring in the next generation of photographers. eBay, hand-me-down, refurb, good camera phones, have been around much longer then this new camera. The Next generation is currently being given access/experience to Smartphone cameras that can produce wonderful results, as well as being able to experiment with apps and settings. Dials and knobs don't necessarily interest the next gen. Nor are most newcomers interested/patient in setting the camera up for the best shot or taking the time to gain experience. The next generations that come to the ILC playground will have their expectations dashed with this no-frills video gimped model.



Where I live there is no eBay and no refurb. "Hand-me-down" will not get you 80D+18-135 STM because it is 4 monthly salaries. You might get a 10 year old point&shoot :

USA is not the only market in the world. You made the same wrong presumption as the f-stoppers did. BTW - that stands for foto-stoppers, right? ;D



Helmski said:


> IF canon was really interested in the next generations, more then they are in maintaining the status quo, they would produce an intuitive new design with touch menus that guide/teach you how to produce better compositions.



"intuitive new design" that you describe sounds more like an iPhone app than it sounds like something Canon "should do" ;D


----------



## Etienne (Mar 3, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Sony releases a relatively cheap full-frame mirrorless monster ... the A7 III ... for $2000.
> ...



Such a simple point and you still don't get it. I recommend Remedial Reading 101 for you.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 3, 2018)

C-A430 said:


> Helmski said:
> 
> 
> > No doubt that this camera will resonate with some, but I would argue, those coming into the fold of ILC's would make their way regardless of this model. I have not heard a compelling argument as to why this will bring in the next generation of photographers. eBay, hand-me-down, refurb, good camera phones, have been around much longer then this new camera. The Next generation is currently being given access/experience to Smartphone cameras that can produce wonderful results, as well as being able to experiment with apps and settings. Dials and knobs don't necessarily interest the next gen. Nor are most newcomers interested/patient in setting the camera up for the best shot or taking the time to gain experience. The next generations that come to the ILC playground will have their expectations dashed with this no-frills video gimped model.
> ...



Very well said. This forum tends to be very top heavy on the high end of the market. I fear many misunderstand the entry level end of things and developing markets elsewhere. I think this camera will be well received in both markets. Yes, even here in the U.S.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 3, 2018)

mpphoto said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Good job running in circles only to make the same point that I was making.

You would have been far better off with a cheap SLR for your first camera.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 3, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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.

Ok, underwater may be the last refuge for non-ILC bodies.
But it’s still a highly specialized application, in that case you’re going out of your way to buy a waterproof camera, like drone photography or rear view cameras on your car, this isn’t what’s being advertised as the ideal first camera for someone wanting to do general photography.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 3, 2018)

yjchua95 said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Point and Shoot cameras never should have existed at all.
> ...



The SL2 is nearly the same size as my first camera, and EOS-M is effectively the successor to the Canon Powershot, especially when they’re being made by the same people within Canon.
All Canon needs to do is start making a $200 EOS-M, which shouldn’t be hard.

And then for sub-$200 bodies they could use a 17mm sensor (M4/3 sized) to reduce costs even more (it’s really ironic that the M4/3 manufacturers refuse to try to compete at entry level prices while Canon is making even better progress using APS-C).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 3, 2018)

Etienne said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



Mercedes releases a new, slightly less expensive but still feature-packed SUV. Honda releases a new, more affordable Fit without air conditioning. 

I can understand people wanting to vent their frustration at Honda for not releasing a new, hybrid Pilot model. Wait...no, I can't. That would be asinine.


----------



## Etienne (Mar 3, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



I can understand someone being so committed to a camera brand that they cannot abide by any criticism of any of their products or actions, and feel compelled to attack even simple comments that might explain why others aren't so in love.

Oh, wait, no I can't ... that would be asinine


----------



## Etienne (Mar 3, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



I almost forgot ... no one goes to a trade show and compares the new offerings (or lack of offerings in this case) from different brands .... I suppose that would be asinine too. 
No one in the imaging business should notice who's innovating at the show, and certainly should write what they think about it ... that would be asinine too
:


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 3, 2018)

At least we now know who needs Remedial Reading 101. :


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 3, 2018)

I almost forgot, I guess I missed Canon's massive display at the trade show, showcasing the 4000D. Which trade show was that, again? 

You can go ahead and file that post under irrelevant tangents. Or verbal diarrhea.


----------



## dak723 (Mar 3, 2018)

Etienne said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...



Ask a simple question and get an insult as a reply.

You are comparing a $2,000 camera with a $400 camera intended for a new camera owner who would not buy an ILC unless they can get a really cheap price. To me, the point is that you are trolling and bashing Canon with absolutely no argument. Presumably, since you couldn't find an answer to my simple question as to why you are comparing two different camera intended for two different consumers, you have no answer and you have no argument. Thus, as is usually the case when there is no argument, you resort to insults. That is what my reading skills tell me.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Mar 3, 2018)

canonnews said:


> 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.


Agreed, the 4000D makes sense to keep those manufacturing facilities humming until fully depreciated.

Augment vs. shift... better choice of words, yet as Canon adds more lines I just don't see how they all get sold, especially at lower end. Is it all on-line or different models in different countries? Locally most stores only stock very limited models. Some complain Canon forces them to carry too much inventory which sits idle until finally they get Canon to buy it back or eBay it off. It's tragic, but in my area Canon is not well regarded by sellers due to business practices. One pro store doesn't sell Canon at all.


----------



## Etienne (Mar 3, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I almost forgot, I guess I missed Canon's massive display at the trade show, showcasing the 4000D. Which trade show was that, again?
> 
> You can go ahead and file that post under irrelevant tangents. Or verbal diarrhea.



The Canon cult is indistinguishable from the Apple cult.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Mar 3, 2018)

I fully understand, that they are offering a camera as cheap as possible, and it looks like a "real" camera. 10 years ago i had a ixus 65 and a friend of me inspired me with his 450d which was a fantastic camera in comparision. Now i went up all the path and own a nice collection of fine equipment.

What i think is a misstake to still sell 18-55 lenses without IS. Just for a spontanous walmart buyer, a kid or other occasional "automatic mode" user IS makes a huge difference. Better sell people for 420$ a kit with IS than for 400$ one without, it can be the difference between "wow" and "frustration". The first expierience often decides between success or not..


----------



## EduPortas (Mar 3, 2018)

This one is going after the Nikon D40 market.

It'a about time someone released a _new_ camera that actually _costs less_
than the other Canon models that have steadily gone up in price since their first itineration.

As someone else said, not every Canon customer lives in the US, Japan or Europe
and most countries don't have a robust used-camera market.

So this camera makes perfect sense.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 3, 2018)

Etienne said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...


And $2000 is more than the vast bulk of consumers will pay for a camera.....


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 3, 2018)

Etienne said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I almost forgot, I guess I missed Canon's massive display at the trade show, showcasing the 4000D.
> ...


Etienne, I believe you misunderstand: I don't believe there's any Canon cult here. People like Neuroanatomist, and myself, do not believe that Canon is perfect. Far from it: I don't believe any camera maker is perfect, mostly because perfection is relative. If you are a landscape photographer, perhaps a medium format body that shoots 1.5 fps is perfect for you. On the other hand, if you shoot sports, you need 12fps or higher to get what you want. The question is which company makes the product *you* want to buy. You should then buy that product. We also believe that posting hopes, dreams and other rants on message boards will have nearly zero effect on what Canon (and other makers) choose to sell. Why? Because they have access to research that gives them much better information.

So why do people here seem to "defend" Canon? Well, it's not really defense of Canon, it's explaining their own choices. Sony sensors (in Sony and Nikon bodies) have great low-ISO DR. But Canon has a better selection of lenses, a history of reliability and good service, etc. It's a personal choice.

But what about people, like you, who bring up areas where Canon products can be improved? Please continue to do that! We'd all like to have more low-ISO DR, cleaner shadows and high-ISO, etc. But improvements to the products will increase the price. Some argue that it's worthwhile, or that it would increase sales to the point of break-even on R&D costs. Maybe. What we do know is that Canon's camera division has a long history of predicting what will make a profit for them, and we should respect that. It doesn't mean that Canon is perfect, or couldn't stand improvements. No, it's just an acknowledgement of the reality that this is how corporate business works.

In summary:


buy the gear *you* want, from whatever brand
posting complaints will not affect the manufacturers; the message boards are more fun and interesting when participants help each other get the best from their gear
understand that Canon, Nikon, Sony, et al are in business to make money, not to make anyone's perfect camera


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 3, 2018)

Etienne said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I almost forgot, I guess I missed Canon's massive display at the trade show, showcasing the 4000D. Which trade show was that, again?
> ...



If by that, you mean there are people who recognize and value quality and reliability, I agree. Not everyone is so enlightened.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 3, 2018)

9VIII said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



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......


----------



## C-A430 (Mar 3, 2018)

Don't bother searching back through our news archive for information on this camera or looking for a preview page; *the EOS 4000D is not scheduled to hit North American shores*.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/03/02/the-new-low-cost-canon-camera-you-might-have-missed-has-missed-the-mark

Has somebody mentioned this before? I only read the f-stoppers article and this forum tread. Have I missed this information or has everyone on this forum failed to notice?

It is probably targeted at China & India, just like my cellphone which was designed to be Indias most popular phone but got sent to developing countries of Europe too, although internet says that my specific sub-model is available in India and Middle East only.


----------



## Talys (Mar 3, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



Exactly. I began photography as a hobby in the 1980's, and the first and only $2,000 camera body I have ever purchased is a Canon 6DII.

That isn't to say that I haven't spent a lot of money on photography; it's just not on camera bodies -- I've spent a lot more on lighting and lenses (and once upon a time, darkroom and supplies) than I have on camera bodies, and I don't regret my spending priorities at all.


----------



## Talys (Mar 3, 2018)

Etienne said:


> I can understand someone being so committed to a camera brand that they cannot abide by any criticism of any of their products or actions, and feel compelled to attack even simple comments that might explain why others aren't so in love.
> 
> Oh, wait, no I can't ... that would be asinine



Anyone who is an actual _photographer_ -- and by that, I mean, someone who enjoys the hobby of or earns a living from taking photographs -- should be delighted at the amazing cameras that are available today from nearly every brand.

Each person may have a preference of one brand or another, but the tools are amazing, and in truth, any modern ILC is capable of taking stunning, knock-your-socks-off photographs. Every person may have a preference of one model or another, and sure, more expensive models have additional capabilities that make our lives easier, or photography more efficient, or the tools more durable, and more expensive lenses offer a little crisper images, or more reach.

But: if you can't take an amazing photographs with a $500 ILC that's sold today, the problem isn't with the gear.

There's a big difference with saying, "I love model X and prefer it to model Y because of these reasons", to saying "People who buy model Y are idiots." Just like, there's a big difference between, "I love Feature A", to saying, "People who don't see how feature A is amazing are stupid."

So if you love a brand, say it. If you don't love a model or design choice, say that. Just be respectful that other people may have totally different priorities than you, and at the end of the day, *the best camera for any photographer is the one that they are most comfortable with*.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 3, 2018)

C-A430 said:


> Don't bother searching back through our news archive for information on this camera or looking for a preview page; *the EOS 4000D is not scheduled to hit North American shores*.
> 
> https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/03/02/the-new-low-cost-canon-camera-you-might-have-missed-has-missed-the-mark
> 
> ...


Yes, the fact that 4000D was not being sold on the American market was ignored so far.
But my surprise is: So far, Rebel T7 also does not appear on the BH nor Adorama website.


----------



## dak723 (Mar 3, 2018)

ajfotofilmagem said:


> C-A430 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't bother searching back through our news archive for information on this camera or looking for a preview page; *the EOS 4000D is not scheduled to hit North American shores*.
> ...



According to our very own Canon Rumors. the camera will come to North America and be called the T100.

http://www.canonrumors.com/canon-announces-the-eos-rebel-4000d-the-cheapest-dslr-ever-will-come-to-north-america-as-the-eos-rebel-t100/


----------



## aceflibble (Mar 3, 2018)

Aspirational =/= inspirational.

CR writer straight-up completely misread and misunderstood what was being said.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 3, 2018)

dak723 said:


> ajfotofilmagem said:
> 
> 
> > C-A430 said:
> ...


On the site Adorama and BH there are still no Canon T100 as well.


----------



## RickWagoner (Mar 3, 2018)

I love how camera bloggers and forum members have no idea what they're talking about yet they demonize a company who knows exactly what they're doing. 

Canon is the number one selling brand of SLR cameras in the world and all people do is complain about them ?

What you're are missing are these fine points. First the majority of the buying SLR market is $1200 body or less, so much so that Canon still outsells the old 70D new five times as much as the 5d3/5d4 put together, Think about that for a second. Canon sells more entry level bodies in one day than any 7d2 and higher body together sells in a month. Another thing is how much profit the company makes selling a entry level body vs the higher end stuff, you would think they make more profit on the higher end stuff being a higher price tag but you are incredibly wrong. The machining needed for the higher end bodies cost more to produce and require more refreshes for a lower volume than the entry level bodies machining that is much cheaper to make and lasts a lot longer. Why sell five 5d4's when you can sell fifty T6 bodies in the same time and make more profit? 

Seriously if 1% of the first time entry level buyers return to buy one more Canon body in the future the company can last easily for another 15 years, that is how large the entry level market is. 

Before you all say "what about the pro market? What about buyers like me?". Well you're nothing to the camera market, remember money talks. Also guess where all that money comes from to develop your camera body, from the entry level profits. If they cared so much about you they would not be in business for long or would be the size of the tiny SLR division of Nikon. Sony is only doing what it is with cameras to keep you in the brand, they sell you a cheap feature packed camera today and later you buy a tv and some headphones from them and they make their money that way. 

Also stop talking about 4k. No one cares about an SLR shooting 4k! Most people don't have the computer to work with 4k and these same people have devices already in their pocket that can do the job. When i say no one i mean the majority of the Canon SLR buying market...the people buying a cheap and entry level "pro SLR" to take pictures....this is where the money is!


----------



## canonnews (Mar 3, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> 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.

the intent of his article and wording until the end was really he wasn't inspired by the camera, and therefore it was bad, and shows a failure of the manufacturer. That's the way I read the article.


The fact that he chose to use the term aspirational during his conclusions, IMO, was ludicrous, but i didn't want to really call him a complete idiot.

A $400 camera regardless of features may be something that someone aspires to simply because it's the only 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.

Like i said earlier I was curious on how people would react to the article, if they could see the place for such a camera (like I could for instance) and if the general CR community was different than what I saw in the comments section over in f-stoppers.

Which thankfully it is


----------



## Talys (Mar 3, 2018)

canonnews said:


> 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


----------



## canonnews (Mar 3, 2018)

Talys said:


> canonnews said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Mar 3, 2018)

canonnews said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > canonnews said:
> ...


At the moment, the official Canon store in Brazil is selling the following cameras with a price converted to US dollars:

70D kit 18-135mm.......US$3076
T6S body only.............US$1999
T6i kit 18-55mm......... US$1200
T5i kit 18-55mm..........US$923
T5 kit 18-55mm...........US$769


----------



## okaro (Mar 3, 2018)

9VIII said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Compact cameras are handy if you want a camera with long zoom in small size and at a cheap price. Also new compact cameras with one inch sensor are in most cases a match to EOS cameras in the image quality.


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 4, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



It isn't a 6D in a 4000D wrapper. The sort of indignance we see all the time.


----------



## Refurb7 (Mar 4, 2018)

The article is just too damned STOOPID to deserve much commentary. I'll just say that it ignores a whole bunch of high end Canon products. Canon wisely makes a broad range of products, something for every budget.


----------



## rifleman (Mar 4, 2018)

Canon are not replacing the 1Dx with the 4000 - so what's the issue?

I'm sure that they have a market for those that want to replace the Nazi salute of the cellphone with a proper camera - and maybe have the sense to start with an SLR ( or M50?)

Maybe Canon will, one day, catch up with Sony et al, with a full frame mirrorless or even some better firmware for the M5, you know, folders, GPS etc. ML lenses even.

I can wait - and play with my 1Dx for now.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 4, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



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.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 4, 2018)

Etienne said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I almost forgot, I guess I missed Canon's massive display at the trade show, showcasing the 4000D. Which trade show was that, again?
> ...



Etienne, your original point was a meaningless comparison between two very different things. Now you're responding to all criticism with vacuous dismissal of everyone with dissenting opinions. Why so defensive all of a sudden? Don't you have anything substantive to say?

Let's say next time around Sony releases an entry-level camera at around the same time Canon comes out with a flagship model. The two would still have no relevance to each other. It's not about brands, it's about apples and oranges. But I think (hope) you know that.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Mar 4, 2018)

9VIII said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...


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!?


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 4, 2018)

old-pr-pix said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



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.....


----------



## TAF (Mar 4, 2018)

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 (Mar 4, 2018)

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 (Mar 4, 2018)

snoke said:


> 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 (Mar 4, 2018)

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 (Mar 4, 2018)

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 (Mar 5, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> old-pr-pix said:
> 
> 
> > 9VIII said:
> ...



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 (Mar 5, 2018)

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 (Mar 5, 2018)

Valvebounce said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2018)

canonnews said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > canonnews said:
> ...



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 (Mar 5, 2018)

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 (Mar 5, 2018)

Valvebounce said:


> 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?
> ...



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 (Mar 5, 2018)

canonnews said:


> aceflibble said:
> 
> 
> > Aspirational =/= inspirational.
> ...


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 (Mar 5, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> canonnews said:
> 
> 
> > aceflibble said:
> ...



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 (Mar 5, 2018)

unfocused said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2018)

dak723 said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2018)

dak723 said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Mar 5, 2018)

unfocused said:


> 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 (Mar 5, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> 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 (Mar 6, 2018)

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 (Mar 6, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> ...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.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Mar 6, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> 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
> ...


Thanks, Don - finally some evidence. As to the size question, here is comparison: http://camerasize.com/compact/#385,715.389,612,ha,t
Looks to me the P900 is shorter than SL-2+55-250, and SX50 is much smaller. Plus SL-2 needs a 2nd lens to cover 24-88mm eq. The newer SX-60 has even wider zoom range (21-1365 mm eq.) at ~$475.


----------



## Talys (Mar 6, 2018)

old-pr-pix said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > On the utility of cheap cameras
> ...



Don, I don't have a problem with your premise that superzooms have a place in photography, but I do have a problem with the examples. 

1. The 70D with 55-250 is underexposed, and the 6D2 with 150-600 is either OOF, shakey, or both. I mean, I have a 6D2 and 150-600, and I have thousands of tack sharp photos at 600mm.

2. I would mount the 150-600 onto 7D, put it on tripod, acquire perfect focus, and take a remote trigger shot at ISO100, 800, and 2000. Then do the same with 6D2. Then with SX50 (with built in lens). This would give a much more complete picture of the cameras. 

3. Each photo over base ISO should then be processed with LR for noise reduction, because at the end of the day nobody cares about the unprocessed raw. 

4. You shouldn't compare APSC 250mm with FF 600mm with small sensor 1200mm equiv. - because ILC only has the promise of better results when you use the right optics (or you move closer, etc). 

5. None of the photos are great. For a good test, there should be at least 1 baseline image that is great. Otherwise you're offering the least bad choice. 

6. This overlooks the main objections with small sensor superzooms in real life use: Inferior performance at fast shutter speeds, and soft corners fully open, and at certain FR's. But this is also a problem with EFS consumer lenses. As you know, both are important in wildlife and sports because you need faster shutter speeds, and many crops will happen with the subject not just in the center. 

7. This also overlooks a weakness in many superzooms, no filter threads. Maybe not an issue for many, but no ND and polarizers is a major disadvantage (for some, deal killers) for many types of landscapes. There is just no way to do a long exposure without an ND. 

What this really highlights is that if you want to have a camera that you can whip out and photograph any subject at any distance, a superzoom is highly attractive. But if you want to take the best picture that you can (for example, an assignment), you'll produce better photographs using a big, heavy lens and a bigger sensor. And if you need the best photos possible at various types of subjects and distances in the same shoot, the only real choice is to carry multiple bodies. 

All that said, I think it is indisputable that small superzooms are amazingly handy, and a vauable tool for a whole range of scenarios. A photo is better than no photo, and a superzoom photo is often better than a photowith the wrong lens on an ILC.


----------



## Valvebounce (Mar 6, 2018)

Hmmmmph rip plonk.....the sound of goalposts being moved?


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 6, 2018)

Talys said:


> old-pr-pix said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...


Your points are all good. I agree with them.

I had a 5 minute opportunity before a meeting.... this was done by passing a SD card between 3 camera owners to shoot an antenna at the other end of a parking lot, on a very overcast day, just before sundown. We put the cameras into auto to make the comparison somewhat even. There was no opportunity nor time to do it right. I also do not know if the 6D2 owner or the 70D owner AFMAd their lenses.....

The point that I am trying to make is that every camera has a different set of advantages and disadvantages. There is no best camera. Some are better for cost, some are better for size, some for image quality, some for AF system, some for lenses, and some for various lighting conditions.... and then there is the photographer's goal.

If my goal was to make a beautiful image, they all suck. I would grab the 6D2 and the 150-600 lens, or better yet, a 300mm lens, and head back there on a clear night.... take some shots to get the exposure of the tower lights right, then some time exposures to get the stars.... and then off to photoshop!

If my purpose is a tower inspection, then the last picture is great. I put it in my report and say that the backup light bulb and casing is broken/missing and that the cables should be tied up better.

There is a time and a place for fancy cameras and big lenses. There is a time and a place for P/S cameras. There is a time and a place for superzooms and bridge cameras. there is a time and a place for very low cost introductory cameras. We choose what makes sense to us and our situation, but we also need to recognize that others will make different choices and to respect those choices.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Mar 6, 2018)

Talys said:


> ... What this really highlights is that if you want to have a camera that you can whip out and photograph any subject at any distance, a superzoom is highly attractive...
> 
> All that said, I think it is indisputable that small superzooms are amazingly handy, and a valuable tool for a whole range of scenarios. A photo is better than no photo, and a superzoom photo is often better than a photo with the wrong lens on an ILC.


Well then, can we agree that the mere existence of the 55-250 hasn't obsoleted the value of Superzooms? And that anyone who chooses to buy a Superzoom isn't a de facto idiot? I have friends and neighbors waiting for the verdict!


----------



## canonnews (Mar 6, 2018)

aceflibble said:


> canonnews said:
> 
> 
> > aceflibble said:
> ...



You have to be inspired by photography to want to buy an ILC and any ILC that is on the market these days will work with that inspiration, even an 4000D has it's uses to fuel that inspiration. To suggest that a 4000D must be technology advanced to fuel aspirations in my mind is a dead issue and not something I really wanted to comment on, so I didn't really  Because aspiration depends on economic, and other global factors that are really outside of the bounds of this. Not to mention, that's far more of a personal criteria. ANY camera on the market can be such a camera. The entire premise doesn't even make sense.

If I was going to talk about the 4000D being an aspirational camera or should have been, then I would have literally had a two sentence response and no real engagement in the forums. I decided to read and process it differently as to why the 4000D can still be purchased and used to inspire someone photographically.

Too often we tend to get critical on cameras because they have nothing in which to aspire to, especially as hobbyists. This is especially true about the lower end beginner cameras.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 7, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> 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....
> 
> ...



Congratulations you've described and demonstrated exactly what I've been saying all along.



9VIII said:


> ...
> 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.



Superzooms are _only_ good at maximum zoom. You're going to end up with 5% of your shots looking better, and the other 95% looking worse than if you had been using the SL2+55-250STM.

Look at this: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=canon_sx60hs&attr13_1=nikon_cpp900&attr13_2=canon_eos200d&attr13_3=canon_eos70d&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=3200&attr16_1=3200&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=3200&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.12290810711880648&y=-0.803637186311947

How much cropping is that sensor noise worth?

And the P900 doesn't even shoot RAW!



Don Haines said:


> One from a 70D and a 55-250 at 250mm



That had better be "The" 55-250 IS STM or else the comparison is almost fraudulent.
The 70D is clearly producing tons of noise, but it's also much worse than the SL2 in that aspect: https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=845&Test=0&ISO=6400&CameraComp=1141&TestComp=0&ISOComp=6400





old-pr-pix said:


> ...As to the size question, here is comparison: http://camerasize.com/compact/#385,715.389,612,ha,t
> Looks to me the P900 is shorter than SL-2+55-250, and SX50 is much smaller. Plus SL-2 needs a 2nd lens to cover 24-88mm eq. The newer SX-60 has even wider zoom range (21-1365 mm eq.) at ~$475.



You've almost completely missed the point of the size comparison
This is basically the only angle that matters: http://camerasize.com/compact/#715.389,385,612,da,b 
The fact that the P900 is also so close to the length (back LCD to front lens element) of the SL2+55-250STM makes it absolutely the worst example of a "compact superzoom".

The SX50IS is a bit more compact, but at what cost? It's still less than half as good as the SL2 in 90% of shooting situations and cuts you off from using the camera in any other capacity (Portraits, Macro, almost anything indoors).


----------



## old-pr-pix (Mar 7, 2018)

9VIII said:


> old-pr-pix said:
> 
> 
> > ...As to the size question, here is comparison: http://camerasize.com/compact/#385,715.389,612,ha,t
> ...


While I totally agree the size of the P900 is almost worst case for a Superzoom, I don't agree that the only important dimension of a camera is its back side. Yet, here is what I use for hiking: http://camerasize.com/compact/#715.389,385,612,594,da,b note how much smaller the Olympus is than the SL-2. Its lenses are smaller as well and it's fully weather sealed! Not everyone is driven to make every photo the absolute technical best - there are a lot of folks who just want an all-around 'good enough' camera. They are the same ones who accepted 4x6 mini-lab prints that were slightly soft and had a greenish tint and thought they were wonderful because 'Aunt Mary' had such a nice smile. Those folks don't want to carry extra lenses (remember all those wide angle shots the 55-250 doesn't cover!), they don't even want to know how to change lenses. I get it, that isn't you! But, what works for you may well not work for others.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 7, 2018)

old-pr-pix said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > old-pr-pix said:
> ...



Everyone Has A Smartphone!!!
No one ever needs to change lenses! (Most Rebel owners don't!)
The wide angle on your Superzoom is utterly redundant, heck it's probably _worse_ than the average smartphone camera now, and you're massively complicating things by asking someone to use a dedicated camera to take pictures of "aunt Mary" when that introduces about a dozen steps between the taking of the picture and uploading it to facebook.
And if anyone mentions the use of a P&S Superzoom they'll be disappointed because everyone else will just say "my smartphone is just as good as your $500 camera", because most of those people would be right in saying that.

All the "good enough" people have all the camera they want in their phone, and practically every advanced camera on the market today still has the green box mode just in case a non-photographer picks one up.
99% of the people who want more than a smartphone would be wasting their money on a Superzoom. Only the tiny fraction of people who specifically want to shoot at the most extreme lengths actually want what a P&S Superzoom offers.

An entry level APS-C body is an order of magnitude better than the Superzoom Point and Shoot or any Smartphone. If everyone would learn that then the P&S market would effectively die out instantly.
The only "Point and Shoot" models left would be advanced ones with big sensors that are based on ILC systems and only differentiate themselves by integrating the lens to save space.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 7, 2018)

I was in Hawaii for most of December and went to four islands. I did some day tours with groups. Most people were taking pictures of themselves. Some were even carrying sticks to attach their phones for the purpose. They visited some of the most beautiful places on earth, and took few if any pictures of the scenery other that what can be seen on the edge of the picture. A phone is the best camera for that: just hit a button, and the face of the phone becomes the viewfinder. 

A friend yesterday posted that while I was at the Smithsonian, I should take a picture of myself beside Archie Bunker’s chair. Worst picture I’ve ever taken, except maybe some with my thumb over the lens. I had to find the button to change to the front camera. And then I never could get both myself and a significant portion of the chair in the picture at the same time. 

I don’t have any idea of the point of superzooms: certainly bad for selfies, and for my style of photos. I use a G7X II for travel, and rarely feel limited by the reach of the 100mm equivalent long end. There’s enough resolution to crop for most of my purposes. I more often feel constrained on the wide (24) end, and stitch panoramas. With my 6D2 I find the almost exact equivalent range of the STM kit lens covers the vast majority of what I shoot. I will replace the bad 75-300mm I got with my first Rebel some time, but no rush. I might get a 16-35mm first.


----------



## LDS (Mar 7, 2018)

stevelee said:


> Most people were taking pictures of themselves. Some were even carrying sticks to attach their phones for the purpose. They visited some of the most beautiful places on earth, and took few if any pictures of the scenery other that what can be seen on the edge of the picture.



Susan Sontag wrote "Most tourists feel compelled to put the camera between themselves and whatever is remarkable that they encounter. Unsure of other responses they take a picture. This gives shape to experience: stop, take a photograph, and move on."

Now they feel compelled to put themselves between the camera and whatever is remarkable - it's the self-centered world of social networks, where "social" gets a twisted meaning.

In some ways, cameras like the 2/4000D which are not selfie-friendly, can help to bring back the idea photography is something more, and often is an exercise in "seeing better".


----------



## unfocused (Mar 7, 2018)

LDS said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > Most people were taking pictures of themselves. Some were even carrying sticks to attach their phones for the purpose. They visited some of the most beautiful places on earth, and took few if any pictures of the scenery other that what can be seen on the edge of the picture.
> ...



I read a statement in a social media marketing text that has stuck with me and speaks volumes: "Instead of preserving images for posterity, photos are now seen as visual representations of fleeting moments, often quite small and trivial, to be captured and put aside."

I am afraid we are too far down that path to ever turn back and I doubt that any camera will change that fact.


----------



## NancyP (Mar 7, 2018)

Superzooms are popular with traveling birders who want "identification" photos, not necessarily prize-winning photos. Photographing birds is a great way to improve your observational and identification skills as a birder. I suppose that a spotting lens and Any Phone or PS serves the same purpose well. 

For most travel not involving wildlife watching, a 24 to 70 (or 100) mm equivalent lens works very well.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 8, 2018)

LDS said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > Most people were taking pictures of themselves. Some were even carrying sticks to attach their phones for the purpose. They visited some of the most beautiful places on earth, and took few if any pictures of the scenery other that what can be seen on the edge of the picture.
> ...



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. We ourselves are unique - whereas most of our experiences are not. I value 1000x more a shot of a person who mattered to me, in a time long gone, than all but the very best shots of things or places (except where those places have also irrevocably changed and haven't been photographed by many others).

Second, unless people enjoy photography in and of itself (and it seems most people don't), trying and failing to get the shots is frustrating, disheartening, and perplexing. People wonder, why did my shot look like that glossy photo in the brochure? So nowadays my advice in general (*emphatically only to non-enthusiasts when they ask*) is, don't bother trying to take good pics on holiday of the places you go, and don't take a dedicated camera. There's already thousands of perfect shots of famous places and things - taken by people with the right gear, the right knowledge, or edited to mass taste (and even if your shots *do* turn out well, they'll just be more of the same). Take a phone, snap a bit if you like, but just enjoy yourself.

This probably makes me sound very jaded, but obviously it doesn't apply if you like photography. Then the process is a goal in itself. Of course even the best and most motivated may not create the images they want, but so long as the process brings pleasure, it ultimately shouldn't matter.


----------



## Talys (Mar 8, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Second, unless people enjoy photography in and of itself (and it seems most people don't), trying and failing to get the shots is frustrating, disheartening, and perplexing. People wonder, why did my shot look like that glossy photo in the brochure? So nowadays my advice in general (*emphatically only to non-enthusiasts when they ask*) is, don't bother trying to take good pics on holiday of the places you go, and don't take a dedicated camera. There's already thousands of perfect shots of famous places and things - taken by people with the right gear, the right knowledge, or edited to mass taste (and even if your shots *do* turn out well, they'll just be more of the same). Take a phone, snap a bit if you like, but just enjoy yourself.
> 
> This probably makes me sound very jaded, but obviously it doesn't apply if you like photography. Then the process is a goal in itself. Of course even the best and most motivated may not create the images they want, but so long as the process brings pleasure, it ultimately shouldn't matter.



I think there is great wisdom in this.

Amazing photography is just like any other art, craft, or skill. If you want stuff that's as good as what you see commercially, you'll need to spend a lot of time learning and improving, and the improvements will come very gradually with successes interspersed with failures. If you don't want to do that, save yourself the grief and money, pick up that smartphone and record a happy memory and move on.

On the other hand, there ARE people who get the photography bug!


----------



## slclick (Mar 8, 2018)

Talys said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Second, unless people enjoy photography in and of itself (and it seems most people don't), trying and failing to get the shots is frustrating, disheartening, and perplexing. People wonder, why did my shot look like that glossy photo in the brochure? So nowadays my advice in general (*emphatically only to non-enthusiasts when they ask*) is, don't bother trying to take good pics on holiday of the places you go, and don't take a dedicated camera. There's already thousands of perfect shots of famous places and things - taken by people with the right gear, the right knowledge, or edited to mass taste (and even if your shots *do* turn out well, they'll just be more of the same). Take a phone, snap a bit if you like, but just enjoy yourself.
> ...



Great posts. I have an rare opportunity to return to a destination this next June which I was just at last December. I took the little gear, the M5 kit and while I did take my time and employ the best photographic practices I could with the new body and lenses it was still closer to iphone photography all in all than the experience if I would have packed my FF gear and tripod/filters etc. Family was a key issue, you all know the drill, no one wants to wait and you need to venture off alone before they all wake up and whatnot. But this June I will be without kids, will take the big bag and my time as well. It's taken many years to get to know what to pack, what not to bring and just how to live in the moment without thinking photographically and truly being present.


----------



## stevelee (Mar 9, 2018)

LDS said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > Most people were taking pictures of themselves. Some were even carrying sticks to attach their phones for the purpose. They visited some of the most beautiful places on earth, and took few if any pictures of the scenery other that what can be seen on the edge of the picture.
> ...



Sontag’s remark reminds me of why I went some years leaving cameras at home when I traveled. Back when I was more serious about photography, I tended to shoot pictures rather than see things and do things. It was only in 2000 that I felt like I could venture taking a camera along. I did fairly well until I got to Prague. I bought more slide film every day by the Charles Bridge. If I ever go back, it will be unashamedly a photo trip. And beer drinking, and I’m not that fond of beer, but Czech beer is that good. 

The G7X II is small enough not to get in my way. I took a helicopter ride on Hawaii and shot video during it. I just held the camera pointed in the general direction where I was looking and only occasionally glanced at the screen. The result was pretty decent after I edited it. It and the video I bought from the helicopter company’s video of our trip document my experience. I similarly shot video watching a Blue Angels practice run in Pensacola in sun too bright to see the screen, just pointing the camera in the right general direction without being in my way of watching it live. Most of the video was surprisingly good. 

My travel photos reflect me more than if I were in the pictures. They document what I saw and the way I saw them. My RAW/Photoshop edits are largely efforts to make the pictures reflect how things looked to me then. 

In August when I shot the total eclipse with my T3i, I promised myself that I would quit shooting during totality and just enjoy the rare experience. But when the time came, there I was unscrewing the filter and fiddling with exposure guesses. I did look at it with my eyes and looked around at the crowd and took a few crowd and ambiance shots with the G7X II. The minute and a half seemed like seconds, and I still mix regret that I did that with the pleasure of having the photos, including a diamond ring shot just as totality ended. 

I’m in Washington DC for a basketball tournament and have visited some of the museums on the Mall. I didn’t even take my camera with me today. I used the iPhone to shoot the guy in a giant gecko outfit sitting near me, and that was about it.


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 9, 2018)

For me, Nirvana is the camera and a solo canoe. With it along, I tend to explore more and notice things more.... without it, paddling can degenerate into getting somewhere or just exercise.


----------



## LDS (Mar 9, 2018)

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.


----------



## Valvebounce (Mar 9, 2018)

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. 



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.
> ...


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 9, 2018)

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.
> ...



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...


----------



## scyrene (Mar 9, 2018)

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.
> ...



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!


----------



## LDS (Mar 9, 2018)

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.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Mar 9, 2018)

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!


----------



## LDS (Mar 9, 2018)

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


----------



## Talys (Mar 9, 2018)

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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 9, 2018)

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...


----------



## old-pr-pix (Mar 9, 2018)

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
> ...


Excellent! Problem solved


----------



## espressino (Mar 13, 2018)

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.


----------



## Talys (Mar 14, 2018)

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.


----------



## espressino (Mar 14, 2018)

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 ...
> ...



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.


----------



## LDS (Mar 14, 2018)

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.


----------



## slclick (Mar 14, 2018)

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.


----------



## espressino (Mar 14, 2018)

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.
> ...




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.


----------



## espressino (Mar 14, 2018)

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.
> ...



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.


----------



## LDS (Mar 14, 2018)

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.


----------



## espressino (Mar 14, 2018)

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.
> ...



Absolutely. I agree with every single point you make.


----------



## C-A430 (Mar 19, 2018)

espressino said:


> LDS said:
> 
> 
> > espressino said:
> ...



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.


----------



## C-A430 (Mar 19, 2018)

espressino said:


> LDS said:
> 
> 
> > espressino said:
> ...



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€.


----------



## espressino (Mar 19, 2018)

C-A430 said:


> espressino said:
> 
> 
> > LDS said:
> ...



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.)


----------



## Maiaibing (Apr 2, 2018)

scyrene said:


> We ourselves are unique - whereas most of our experiences are not. I value 1000x more a shot of a person who mattered to me, in a time long gone, than all but the very best shots of things or places (except where those places have also irrevocably changed and haven't been photographed by many others).


Could not agree more.

When I started photographing I studied and even visited some of the world's leading photographers to learn about their photographic philosophy. 

My conclusion was that people are the most engaging subject by far so I decided I would "always" take pictures of people. The result has been that my pictures create a lot of popular interest and have been picked up by all kinds of media.

Today my pictures have probably eclipsed 100 mio. views. Of course any number of views does not reflect any photographic quality. But it does reflect that a lot of people like looking at people-centered pictures.

There are lots of remarkable and memorable/moving nature, landscape, macro, cityscapes etc. etc. But for pure human interest, people shots stand head and shoulders over all other subjects.


----------

