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?
These are sad days for Canon users.
I myself am thinking on selling all my gear, 6D, 135 f2, 50 1.4 and 28 1.8.
I might stay with the 500D just to use vintage glass on it.
Other than that, I'm just waiting on this Sony a7 III to come out, lay hands on a Samyang AF 35 and maybe sometime later other lenses.
This is the enough is enough and if this is what Canon has in mind as of innovation, then please, quit.
So you weren't going to buy this camera regardless. What's your complaint?
No innovation on "high end" models, cheapening of low end models. Let's just say, someone buys this 4000D plus a 75-300 IS (a bit heavy), the plastic bayonnet breaks and bye bye 75-300 (mentioning it because almost all of us had it one day).
The impression for the brand will be like "jeezzz Canon? Nah, mine broke and the lens fell, lost it all, camera and lens".
I will not buy this camera, it is not adressed to a more experienced photographer like I am, BUT, I don't feel that it is fair for the people who buy this, to have a prone-to-problematic camera that will damage the brand's name.
Specially when it costs 400€.
IF the bayonnet were to be Carbon Fiber, then that would be another thing.
I don't know what the heck is wrong with Canon these days, I was shooting Canon years ago before decided to switch Nikon. I don't want to spark a non-sense debate here, but seriously what they've been developing last two years? 6D2 with its dynamic range fiasco and now these BS cameras? We all know both CaNikon are working on FF mirrorless and I hope they both come up with something "acceptable". Maybe their next major move is 7DIII or 90D but for me the most exciting news will be Nikon D750/D610 successor :)
Lol. Give me an EM10ii for that price. Buttons with no markings?!?!
Do not mistake yourself, Sony will do exactly the same in a few year. Atm they cannot afford it, because they are quite new on the high end market. So they do great innovation, invest billions, only release excellent camera, .. And in a few years, when they will have a solid name in camera world, even for the average people... They will start to release low end crappy camera to sell them to newbie and make tons of $$$. That's how the world goes. If canon make great profit with this attempt, you will shortly see Nikon release a full plastic low cost DSLR too.
"Some short-term gain in profits, but a long-term loss by degrading the image of the DSLR" -- I think you pretty accurately described Canon's market strategy. Seemingly everything they do these days is geared exclusively towards maintaining high margins in their consumer camera business. I suspect Canon is perhaps the only company that still makes good money pushing barbones, entry-level DSLRs with just kit lenses at big box stores simply based on the ubiquity of the brand as a "real camera" maker, so from that standpoint this camera makes sense as it might preserve a few more sales from people who are in the fence about just using their phones instead of a dedicated camera. If this thing isn't much of an economic burden and gives some illusion of providing better-than-phone pictures, people will buy, and that's all Canon cares about.
Whether Canon as a company realizes that they're actively contributing to the death of their core business with moves like this is another thing. I would bet that their ability to keep selling lackluster cameras in any market segment bolsters their confidence (why be innovative when being iterative costs less and sells the same?), though that can't last forever. It would seem prudent to realize and accept that the low end will be subsumed by phones and computational photography, but all execs see is that the gravy train is still flowing. Or maybe they feel that the Canon brand is strong enough take this hit (and all the others...) and still come out on top when all that's left are the enthusiast and professional segments to cater to.
I jumped into the photography world a year or two ago, and when I went to buy my first DSLR, Canon was the choice hands down. I didn't do any research (since I didn't know what I was researching), and just picked the camera I saw other photographers have the most. I have a 7Dmkii, and looking to upgrade in the next year or so. I have to admit, Canon makes it really hard to be a repeat customer due to their lack of innovation in the mirror-less game (and in general). Sadly, I am tethered by all Canon glass and feel hostage to wait for them to catch up with innovators like Sony. Probably will jump ship for the A7iii and sacrifice auto-focus performance with an adapter then wait for Canon to do something worthwhile.
This camera will sell very well for $299 with a cheap’ed out kit lens. Add store coupons, sales, and credit card points and they will really sell. Who cares about anything except the sale, right? That is what gets tallied up along with other numbers like volume, profit, contribution margin, etc. I would expect this camera to be the perfect Christmas (or other holiday) present.
You're absolutely right. Canon is looking for profit mapenas in its products. He has practically deceived his faithful owners. Canon sells more than has been around for years. Some of the blame is on people talking and talking about cameras. When it comes to talking Canon they are afraid because it is giant and has most of the market. This way, we get a lot of people being cheated and continuing to follow Canon. This is really a lie in the current market.
Guys I promise everything will be okay and it will still produce a photograph. If the 100-400 breaks the mount can you send me a pic?? lol.
if it's more like $200 with a kit lens... nah not even then would i buy one of these. I could buy a really good used pro-sumer crop camera and a used 50mm f1.8 lens for the cost of this not so fantastic plastic. A plastic lens mount ??? Really????
I would jsut buy a used 6-700d to start instead
Dear Wasim, I get it, you cannot stand cheap cameras. Maybe Leica is your thing and they will never dissapoint you, nothing below 5000USD, all metal and all. But why should people interested in a first camera and who cannot afford the best not have the choice to buy this one?
I find your arguments misplaced and pretentious becasue, for starters, if you already have a 100-400L you will never buy this camera in the first place. Is like I would complain cause the mount will break if I fit my 500 f/4. C'mon.
And finally. "It’s time to make an aspirational camera".
Aspirational for who?
My young nephew thought I'd have extra camera, I thought I did, but my eos 30D developed an error as it sat in the closet and Canon won't service that error any longer. I think I made an error also. Well I wanted my nephew to have something other than an entry level camera so I bought him an old 40D.
The reason, it has both a dial for the aperture and a separate dial for shutter speed. Entry level cameras share one dial and they never become intuitive.
When my tour guest ask what kind of camera they should get, I tell them, they are all good, get a system like your friend uses so they can coach you. Just get one with two dials.
Disaster.
It tells you that lost of professional photographers don't take Sony seriously.
I think it is a great first camera and in many ways in the spirit of the entry-level SLR cameras around in the 70s. then in the UK, you would most likely buy a Zenith or Praktika unless you were pretty well off. The disadvantage with them was that they used the then outdated Pentax Screw mount. This camera from Canon has a big advantage in that you have access to the current Canon lenses and all the back catalogue. I would definitely advise a beginner to get it, learn how to get the best out if it and if they grow out of it, then upgrade, which is what I did in the 70s with the added expense of having to replace all my lenses (28mm, 50mm, 135mm), which was an expensive way to upgrade. I suspect Nikon might follow suit with a similar body to encourage new shooters into their system as most photographers tend to stick with the system they initially buy into.
My father worked for Kodak for 30 years, and I grew up in a Kodak company town (not Rochester). I've seen this dance before. It doesn't end well.
The problem isn't the camera. The Camera is junk. But everybody has made junk for years- Ixus, coolpix, anybody remember the Sony DSC-f1? Horrifying.
I don't care about this Camera, per se. I have no intention of buying it. But I have bought into the system that this company supports, have invested a great deal of money into it, and have been using it for 14 years. I still shoot the 5d Mark II because, honestly, nothing Canon has introduced since then has been $3,500 better. And yet switching to another brand would require a significant outlay of money just to have the lens capabilities I currently possess. The cost of not switching, however, continues to climb.
The 4000d is a symptom of a larger problem, and that problem is that Canon is chasing a market that has largely, and will soon totally, disappear. It's true that some people will move from a 4000d to a "real" camera, but most won't, just like most folks who bought the Rebel T3 didn't get a "real" camera, and were never going to. They bought the rebel because they wanted nice holiday snaps. Have you seen the latest Huawei? It delivers nice holiday snaps, as good as the Rebel T3 or (and this is in fact salient) as good as most of the people who bought the rebel were going to be able to make, and were interested in making, with the rebel. It costs 230 euros. you can play music on it and call people.
In the last six months 3 of my friends with low end Canon DSLRs, mostly bought on my recommendation on the last few years, have asked me to help them sell them on ebay. Not because they hate Canon (they don't really care) nor because the DSLRs didn't do what they wanted them to do when they bought them. What they have found is that they don't use them, because it is easier to take the Samsung to the park. They're not wrong. By the way, have you seen the prices of not-so-old rebels on ebay. They are rock bottom. So I guess a lot of people are doing this.
The "you push the button, we do the rest" market is gone. Gone, gone, gone. If Canon or Nikon want them back, they'll have to make phones.
And this is Canon's Kodak problem. They don't understand that this market is gone, and are devoting limited resources to make the best product that no one buys any more.
I was heartened when the Canon CEO said that he understood that they had fallen behind in innovation, and when they started asking Pro Photographers what they wanted in a mirrorless camera.
What came out of it was revealing. It revealed that Canon doesn't understand people who shoot 4K- they think they won't notice crappy 4K (shades of the advanced photo system, nuh?) It revealed that Canon doesn't understand that people who want a cheap decent camera already have one, it's called a phone. And it revealed that Canon thinks that it is still 2012. It isn't.
What a waste of a product. If this meant to attract young people, it's a total failure. A mirrorless with touchscreen and liveview will be 1000x more attractive, and Canon's own M series are all better than this thing. They should kill all entry-level crap aps-c DSRLs and focus on the M series mirrorless instead for that market.
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. :P
Will buy one for my 4 year old daughter..
What I want to know is did they use the excess parts from 550D era or did they actually proposely make those sensors for it.
A very disappointing "article"....
This is a cheap, simple, light-weight camera designed to open DSLR photography to more people.
Wasim is correct - you wouldn't want to hang a large white Canon lens off a plastic mount.... but why the hell would you put a $2k lens on this camera? Like putting F1 tyres on a Prius.
Any industry "expert" who is so damning of any effort to make this fantastic world more accessible to the masses is being a selfish narcissist IMHO.
Some Canon Rebel film cameras had plastic lens mounts.
Indeed - that's why I said digital!
The 4000D is the answer to the question, "what do you do when you find that lost pallet of old sensors that you misplaced in the back of your warehouse seven years ago?"
Unsurprisingly, Canon keeps producing outdated junk that can barely even keep up with 6+ year old cameras, or its own 8+ year old cameras. There is literally no reason whatsoever to buy either of these cameras over:
Nikon D3200, D3300, D3400
Sony a5000, Sony a5100
Knowing Canon an even more inexpensive version will be released featuring even more antiquated technology.