Canon’s tepid 4000D isn’t released in this country yet, but the fact that it even exists is a sad commentary on where camera manufacturers are today.
Don’t get me wrong. At about $385 pre-tax, Canon will sell tens of thousands of these cameras. They will fly off the shelves. Many will buy in to the Canon system. Then they’ll check out of the Canon system.
Management will shrug and say, “Young people don’t care about quality, they care about convenience.” That’s not true. People care about quality, it’s just that they’re not going to get it with this.
What's Wrong with It?
For starters, the camera screams cheap. It’s the first digital model with a plastic EF mount, which is fine for a kit lens, but I’d be nervous putting my 100-400mm lens on it.
Beyond the plastic mount, the buttons themselves aren’t even labeled. The writing is imprinted onto the body, and the buttons are blank. I once bought a copy of Monopoly in Bangladesh that was clearly made on someone’s inkjet printer, and it looked better than this.
It’s got a sensor that’s almost a decade old. It’s still a good sensor, but time has marched on, and when this camera can’t even competently focus in video, an iPhone starts to look even more attractive as a camera.
Cost cutting is one thing, but first impressions are another. If this is a person’s first experience with a brand, why would they come back?
What Shooters Want
While Canon has (as have other manufacturers, to be fair) been pushing bargain-basement, touchscreen-less cameras to try and capture shooters, Apple, Google and others have been trying to win market share with actual innovation. It’s just not the kind of thing that Canon views as innovation. While Canon’s solutions are hardware-based (witness the 470 EX-AI), Apple, for instance, attacks the lighting problem through software with its lighting modes on the iPhone X. Algorithms make up for physics. Think of it as a turbocharged four-cylinder car outrunning a version with a larger V6 engine. Efficiency is key.
Many parents I know want those creamy, blurred-out backgrounds they see all over professional photos on the Internet. The fact that Canon kits its 4000D with an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 lens handicaps its ability from the get-go to do this. So when those parents run out and buy a camera to try to take a portrait with their kit lens, they’ll probably be disappointed. Then, sooner rather than later they’ll go back to their phones and push the portrait button to get the job done.
Marketing executives can scream about larger sensors and optical zoom until their faces turn blue, but if a camera doesn’t deliver the results, consumers will move on. Nobody cares one bit what DIGIC processor you’re using or what size the sensor is. Setting this camera up to fail with a so-so lens, old sensors, and a body that looks ready to break on the first drop may result in some short-term gain in profits, but a long-term loss by degrading the image of the DSLR in the minds of customers.
What to Do?
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. Otherwise, Canon and other camera companies will keep getting damaging headlines like this and this and this.
What’s your take on the 4000D?
I'm probably alone in my opinion, but I really think Canon would do themselves a favor creating a sub-brand for their entry APS-C cameras and small format PowerShots. Maybe just make an entire brand called Rebel? That would remove a lot of clutter from the Canon brand by sticking the 4000D (T100), T7, T7i, SL2, 77D, and PowerShot superzooms in the Rebel portfolio. Then they could keep high-end APS-C systems like the 80D and 7D II, and the G-series PowerShots in the Canon brand along with their full-frame systems. Maybe I'm just rambling though.
Canon seem to like the ambiguity in their model numbering system, as if they don't want users to be able to figure out which camera is higher specced by simply looking at the model number.
Ha, that's a good summary! Also the 30D vs the D30, the D60 vs the 60D, and how does the 77D fit in there compared to the 70D and the 80D? And also, the jump between the 100D, 200D and then the 300D is dramatic.
Apart from that, and the exceptions you mentioned, the Canon numbering system is a cinch! :-)
I think every brand should do this. Totally see why they'd have consumer-oriented products and pro-sumer/pro products. But split it off. Let the pros and consumers each deal with a simplified product line made just for them. But on that note, the models also need to be simplified. For Nikon, for example, a D5, D850, D750 and D500 make perfect sense as a full lineup. Basically a full-bodied sports camera, a high MP do-it-all, a mid-MP do-it-all, and a high-end APS-C. That's all you need. Maybe a low MP low-light camera and a few mirrorless options down the road, and call it a day. Then create some equivalents at smaller sensor sizes respectively for the consumer brands...
Sort of like what Scion was to Toyota, perhaps?
Right about Nikon - I don't see why the D610 hangs on in the lineup when the much-better D750 is not much more $$$. I say this as owning both at one point or another.
I do think the 5x00 series is a good entry point into Nikon though - seems in many ways to compete with the 3x00 line.
My significant other is wanting to buy another camera body after having had one a number of years ago. We've been talking about the Nikon 3x00 line, but I'm going to work on her to go to the 5x00 level. Significant jump? No. But worth it, in my mind since it will suit her perfectly for years to come.
Reading this article, it's mind-boggling to understand crap quality at a price such as it is, when the existing options could blow it out of the water. I'd look down on Nikon (I'm a D750 owner) if they pulled that. I'm sure they have to a degree already, but my experience with them only goes back a couple of years so I'm being shortsighted.
Bottom line, if you're spending ~$460, you should save a few more pennies and pop for something around $500 with a better quality body, features, etc. But that's just my take.
I think that solution would suit consumers very well, but not manufacturers. Manufacturers cannot afford to make a camera that perfectly (or near perfectly) suits anyone. If they did, people wouldn't upgrade in future, until genuinely new innovations were added to the new models.
Innovation costs money, so the less segmented the lines are, the more that manufacturers can introduce planned obsolescence into each camera's features. And so, the easier it is to release a new model, with little or no actual innovation required in each new model.
I do see an immediate problem with your idea. Those APS-C cameras also accept the EF lenses made for their full frame cameras. Having a separate brand would lead to confusion about lens compatibility.
Are we really complaining about more options for consumers?
I don't get it... This camera seems like a great recommendation for people wanting to start out and not buy used.
Most of us started our dslr journey with a camera similar to this one. And most of us have upgraded since, with Canon doing very nicely from body and glass sales for a long time as a result.
So it appears that Canon's approach to its business model for entry level cameras, is "if it ain't broke then don't fix it". It ain't broke yet - as the article itself stated "Canon will sell tens of thousands of these cameras. They will fly off the shelves."
So it seems a little naive to criticise this very successful business model of Canon's; they have a cash cow and are quite understandably milking it while they can.
Most of us didn't start our dslr journey when smartphones had such capable cameras with supplementing software, though. I think that was the most valid point of the article.
It is a good point. However, Canon have the numbers, and their sales are still high as they milk this cash cow, despite the prevalence of smart phones. An APS-C body with dedicated glass can produce much higher IQ than a smart phone with a tiny sensor. Even non-photographers know this, and so I think there will be a market for these cheap DSLRs for a long time to come.
When sales start to slow, I suspect manufacturers will get serious about installing web-connected apps in-camera. That way, they'll compete with the accessibility that smart phones provide, but will retain the IQ advantage that larger sensors and dedicated lenses provide.
I have to agree. My first dSLR was a Rebel XT; it was a way to get my feet wet in digital while still shooting film. I've upgraded a couple times since.
A lot of folks here knock plastic -- for the average consumer who is going to use this camera a couple times a month for the family-style pics (that's what consumers do with a camera) this is going to be just fine. And they're NOT going to hang a 400mm lens onto that plastic mount. It's very likely that about the time they go from the kit lens to something a little better, they'll decide to upgrade to a higher end dSLR -- Canon hopes it will be them, of course.
Seems like Canon wants a camera at every $50 price point in the consumer space. I guess that's what their market research is telling them.
Where do you get the idea "most of us have upgraded since?" The vast majority of everyone who buys a cheap DSLR with kit lenses ends up giving up on photography, or going back to their phone.
No exaggeration and I'm not guessing. So many people repeat "get it, it's a great beginner's camera."
No, it's a terrible beginner's camera. For most people starting out it's frustrating and disappointing.
And yes, Canon is doing great in sales......but almost all of their sales are JUNK. That's the point...this is just another product that more clearly defines Canon as a junk dealer. This camera won't inspire the masses, this is nothing but a cheap camera designed to LOOK like what people mistakenly assume is a good camera design.
The design is dated, this version is cheap, and Canon is just taking advantage of the ignorance of the masses.
You asked "where do you get the idea 'most of us have upgraded since?'". I bet that most of us who are reading this article didn't start with a DSLR and then go back to simply using a smart phone. Instead, most of us have upgraded from our first digital camera, and many of us have upgraded several times.
Of course many people who decide they want a "proper camera" discover that photography isn't really for them, after they give it a try. Let's face it - photography isn't for everyone, no matter which camera they use. But they're also not the people like us, who are reading this article on a photography website because we like photography.
Canon seems to have something for everyone - cheap entry-level cameras for people who want to try using a "proper camera", and high quality cameras and lenses for those who want to take their photography further. I think that's good - it makes photography financially accessible to those who want to give it a try.
I have to disagree that it's a terrible beginner's camera. Dated? Yes. Cheap? Yes, otherwise the target market won't buy it. Junk? No way!
I started with a Canon 400D, which appears very similar to this 4000D but without the video features. It was a great camera that helped flame my interest in photography. Canon and makes some excellent lenses which will provide great image quality with this camera, many of them also at very affordable prices.
When I'd outgrown my first DSLR, I upgraded (to a Nikon, but that was not a fault of the entry-level Canon, that was because Nikon's d800 was better than Canon's 5d3). A 4000D will introduce the basics of photography just as any other camera will, with a great upgrade path for those who are inspired to go further in their photography. If they price it right, I suggest it's likely an excellent way for beginners to get into photography just as I did, and just as many others did too.
You can bet all you want, surveying photographers is what I get paid for...most people who buy bargain DSLRs shelve or sell 'em and give up. MOST.
...and it's junk. Not just the quality, the overall design, period, is junk. A camera with a moving mirror is years outdated, it's embarrassing Canon is still trying to sell one to ANYONE except an extreme niche market of people who don't like change. But in particular for someone trying to learn, geez louise stop selling SLRs to learners.
And the target market is the whole point...Canon is INVENTING a target market. If we don't build cheap DSLRs that people will get frustrated with and either quit or buy a different camera, then people will buy the cameras that make more sense.
For some people a phone makes more sense.
For a TON of people a good bridge camera makes WAY more sense.
And for anyone serious about photography, they should be encouraged to get a REAL camera...save your money, make a real investment.
The REAL problem with all the sub $500 ILC crap is it TRICKS people into thinking that ILC photography is inexpensive...it's not...this is a bait and switch.
It's not photography, it's marketing, and if you're making money off Canon stock, fine...if you're a PHOTOGRAPHER, you should be pissed off.
I'm pissed off. I teach people photography, and the most disillusioned, disappointed, frustrated group of people is the bulk of everyone buying cheap Canon DSLRs with kit lenses. YOU just don't hear from them because they quit really fast, or hide in forums, embarrassed to talk about it.
What do you mean by "good bridge camera" and "REAL camera"? Can you provide some examples of models that you suggest beginners should be choosing, instead of entry level Canon DSLRs?
In other words, which camera models won't disillusion, disappoint and frustrate beginners to anywhere near the same degree that entry-level Canon DSLRs do?
Stop selling SLRs to learners? I’d respectfully disagree. I believe an SLR is a great learning tool for someone interested in photography. Mirrorless is fun, but too easy. People learn by failing, not having their correct exposures handed to them on a silver platter. That’s not a knock on mirrorless. I shoot mirrorless. I also shoot many formats of film. But for someone learning, there are plenty of high quality SLR options out there that won’t break the bank. Especially on the used market. Just my take.
Oh come on! Just because you don't like cameras with moving mirrors doesn't mean that such cameras are "years outdated". The happy owners of the Nikon D850 and Canon 1DX (and the other good cameras) will disagree with you -- they're taking superb images every day. Outdated? Rubbish. Mirrorless cameras are excellent and they have their place. Mirror camera are at/near the state of the art today and will continue to be around for quite a while.
And no, people will not buy a 'good' camera instead of a 'junk' camera -- if the 'good' camera is $50 or $100 more and the 'junk' camera is (per your edict) off the market, they won't buy ANY camera. A lot of people are price-sensitive, and Canon is producing a product to hit their price point. Yes, that's marketing, and that's the way markets have been for a long time.
Simon has it right -- all those people you teach who are 'disillusioned' didn't get that way because they owned a 'junk' camera. They got that way because they decided that serious photography just wasn't for them. SLR or mirrorless wasn't the issue, it's just that they came to realize that they didn't have inside them what one needs to be a photographer. No problem at all; there are lots of pursuits that just aren't inside me. I'm not a tennis player, and it isn't the fault of the cheap racket in my closet.
For some people a phone makes more sense -- correct! They're welcome to it and if they're happy, I'm happy for them.
"I'm pissed off. I teach people photography, and the most disillusioned, disappointed, frustrated group of people is the bulk of everyone buying cheap Canon DSLRs with kit lenses." I think those students need a better teacher. Maybe a teacher who does not hate on their equipment and instead know how to teach and inspire their students.
I started on a "junk" Canon DSLR at the bottom of the market because it was the only one I could afford. It was one of the best purchases I ever made. I learned how to take photos and how to capture a moment in time they way I wanted to remember it.
And as the saying goes those who can do those who can't teach.
I can't comment on the review other than to say the "plastic" mount doesn't sound good.
Canon's bread and butter is the amateur market. Competing with cellphones has to be a big challenge. Having a product at every price point is a good strategy. I usually suggest that people purchase a better used camera than a lower-end new one.
If you're trying to make an argument that a low end DSLR offering is a bad thing ... because it's so "low end" ... your argument isn't working.
Paying 1K or 2K for a DSLR may resonate positively for some experienced photographers, but it can be completely off-putting to somebody looking to step up to a DSLR from some form of compact camera.
It's about options for potential buyers of this camera ... and you're not a potential buyer of this camera, so obviously you're not going to see the positive side of having the Canon 4000D as one of very few choices to make if one wants to purchase a **new** entry level DSLR.
Personally, rather than purchase the 4000D, I'd probably go looking for a low shutter count Canon T2i on up to a T5 for $100.00 to $300.00 bucks .... but then I'm not a newbie photographer who might be very hesitant to make my first major camera purchase used off Craigslist or Ebay.
I agree. I don't see the big deal in Canon introducing yet another entry level DSLR, as they have for many years now. They've always been relatively cheap, and, given the camera hasn't even been released yet, I think it is too early to judge whether this camera will break easily or not.
I'd probably get a refurbished older model as my first DSLR, because, let's face it, not much changes from camera to camera in the beginner segment of the market. Refurbished models have the advantage of providing a warranty, which is the reason a lot of people buy something new. But refurbished models are a lot cheaper than new models.
I'm still a Canon shooter BUT it's hard to stay with canon when cameras like this are created : (
I'm also a Canon shooter, but neither of us would buy this camera. Then again, Canon has something better for both of us. We are not this camera's market. It's like complaining about a new entry level MacBook when you're currently carrying around a $2500 MacBook Pro. You aren't that market.
Not a Canon hater lets see what the 90D looks like or the 7D3 I just may go CANON full frame at some point ; )
Yes, as a current 70D shooter (and happy enough with it, I'm fairly "price sensitive"), I'd like to see a 90D, or 80D mark II, or 7D3. Then again, I'm getting good images with the 70D and it's working perfectly.
If you're considering upgrading your existing Canon camera, then you won't be considering the 4000D. So I'm not sure how the existence of the 4000D could affect your decision to "stay with Canon" or not.
Thanks Simon i still love my 70D : )
Yes this camera is not for us, and I do think that all this fus about how bad canon became is because of over all disappointment of their new product releases. At least I am! I am shooting 6D almost from the day it was launched (upgraded from second hand 20D which I owned for 5 years and was really significant upgrade! Couldn’t be happier!) Now almost at 5 years of age, I think my good old 6D is on its last legs. And what can canon offer for me that I would see it would be worth upgrading to? Was really hoping M50 to be something to go to, but no, they made real balls out of it. Really don’t see any value in their current line up of bodies as well. And with adapters from EF mount getting to a standard to they are today, I am really struggling to find excuses to stay with Canon.
I hear the same frustration from many Canon shooters, especially 6D owners, who desire to upgrade from their current camera. The latest higher level Canon offerings do not provide all the improved features as the competition does, so Canon appears to have stagnated at all levels, not just the beginner's level.
And so, people see yet another Canon beginner's camera that is largely the same as Canon's beginner's camera of 10 years ago, and it reminds them that Canon is no longer providing its shooters with the latest features in their cameras in the higher price brackets too, compared to comparable models made by other brands.
Hang in there Martin .....Peace to all :)
This isn't the problem, or the beginning. Canon is LITERALLY a bargain-bin, blue light special camera company.
Over the last 8 or 10 years, while the true innovation leaders in photography, Panasonic, Fuji, Olympus, Sigma, Tamron and obviously Sony RACE away from Canon at breakneck speed.....Canon has slowly, grotesquely shifted to being a company that sells almost entirely junk.
You can point to the high end cameras all you want...you can list their lenses all day....but that's just ducking the obvious, almost everything Canon sells is the the 2 year old, bottom of the lineup DSLR with two mediocre lenses.
Over......and over......and over......
90%.....95%.......maybe it's even higher...of everything they sell is dated and low end. Without the sales of T5's with kit lenses last year, Canon would be out of business. And that marketing system by itself is snake oil....bait and switch....lure them in with the WRONG gear so you can sell them gear twice. Fingers crossed they get it wrong the second time too, then you can sell them THREE cameras.
There's nothing wrong with releasing yet another dummied down product. Canon isn't the first.....Canon won't be the last.
The thing we should be fighting against is the invasive mediocrity Canon promotes. They could be an innovation leader...they could have been Sony...they could have re-invented photography for the future.
Instead they've ridden SLR in a nosedive, right into the ground. Instead they've become the Kmart of camera makers more worried about market share in the short term than quality and innovation in the longterm.
I think you make a great case for why Canon should be innovating in the higher segments of the market. But I don't think that needs to affect their beginner DSLR range. Beginner Canon DSLRs are solid, cheap, basic cameras that provide decent image quality that people expect from something at that price point.
So I think your post here points to the high end cameras, without anyone else needing to. That's where innovations are most useful and most marketable, and where manufacturers are more likely to receive a return on their investment in the R&D that drives innovation.
Canon sells junk, Dave ? Tell that to mostly every photographer at the Olympics, the White House Press Corp.,those shooting the Super Bowl, Associated Press staffers. Etc etc.
It's not just Canon that sells low-end dSLRs with kit lenses in a starter box. Walk through a Costco sometime and you'll an equivalent Nikon, low-end, two lenses, in a similar box right next to the low-end Canon kit.
Why? Because they sell. For a starter, or amateur on a tight budget, or someone who did film 30 years ago and is thinking that boy howdy they perhaps should get a digital camera that sorta looks like what they had before, those low-end kits are just the thing. And these folks aren't wrong to buy that kit. If it meets their needs, great, and if not they'll figure it out.
Canon's job is not to "educate" or "uplift" the consumer. Canon's job is to sell cameras. Ditto Nikon, Sony and the others.
I can't believe people are actually defending this camera. You could buy a used 60D for the price and get a better bang for your buck. What happens once your plastic lens mount breaks, and it will eventually break. This is Canon just being Canon. Canon marketing = A+ Canon Products = WTF?
I'm not crazy about the description of the lens mount. I am reminded that Canon developed glass filled polycarbonate for their products. It was revolutionary. My old "plastic" T90 was a good camera that met professional requirements.
Used camera argument is pointless, because it's always the case if you want used gear.. For the price of any camera from any brand, you will always get an higher end one on the used market.
It's a bit funny reading all these bitterly negative comments from people ... not a single one of which will EVER even consider buying this camera.
Not one ... zero, zilch ... not one poster to this comment thread will ever even consider purchasing this camera - indeed most will never even lay their eyes on it.
Shaking your fists at windmills, and seeking out your personal Moriarty somewhere in the Canons business model may satisfy you briefly ... right up until you find the next "thing" (having nothing to do with you) to become completely outraged at!
I still bought an SL1 even though I was negative about it. It had its moments. I don't know if I see any virtues in this one (we don't know the price, so that may be about it).
Essentially it's a stripped down version T2i circa 2010. The 18MP sensor has not been great even by 2010 criteria and now is not any better than sensors in today's smartphones. 9 AF points? Who needs this piece of junk?
....only the people who purchase it.
its just a camera, sheesh! some people are just so wired to hating a system while unjustly justifying themselves. consider the sony a6000. good photos straight from camera. seemingly solid build but get some rain on it and its DONE! yes i have(had) one i know. would you say buildwise its still better than this entry level camera from canon, nikon, etc..? which do you think might fare better than the a6000 under inclement weather? maybe we should just stick to judging it by the photos they produces and don't get me started on dynamic range issues. its not that big a deal and there are easy work arounds.
Do you really expect a young student to put 800$ into an decent DSLR and a correct kit lens ? Manufacturers do understand the market a lot better than you, all they want are profits.. They don't care about the soul of photography :) I have sold a 60mm Tamron macro lens to a student, and these 200$ seemed to be the biggest invest of his life, you pro photographers are a bit disconnected with the price people find expensive or not, you are so used to extremely expensive photography gears.
Last paragraph: "Products like these show a fundamental misunderstanding of the camera market today."
First paragraph: "At about $385 pre-tax, Canon will sell tens of thousands of these cameras. They will fly off the shelves."
Do I understand correctly that selling tens of thousands of cameras shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the market? It's much cooler to sell like no cameras at all?
I do agree however in one point. I Would NEVER in my life put an EF L 5.6 800mm on this camera! Oh, shit, I forgot, I am a Nikon shooter...
Thinking about long term longevity of the DSLR market, something that I'm sure Canon would want, make something that will keep people buying into the system for years to come. A camera like this will goose profits for now as people buy on price, but will not provide a significant perceived quality bump for someone using, say an iPhone X. The kit lens and old sensor hold it back, and the cheap feeling body won't feel very premium to those users.
Were these buyers expecting premium? Someone who owns an iPhone X likely isn't in the market for this camera. This is a student/starter camera. I wish it had the solid build of the old Konica T (now THAT was a student camera!) but apparently not.
But to have a long-term dSLR market you have to have buyers. Getting them from their phones to any dSLR is the first step.
I think Canon is also looking at the long term longevity of the DSLR market by trying to make it more accessible to people who don't have a lot of money. If you have not noticed the camera market is going to continue to shrink. So trying to open up new market segment is one way to keep it from shrinking as fast. By the way is Nikon still losing money? so rather than leaving camera markets like Nikon Canon is try to create new ones.