7
\$\begingroup\$

The Canon EOS 4000D and the Canon EOS 1300D seem to me to have the same specs and mount the same lenses, but the second one is cheaper. Is there any risk in buying a camera which is going to go out of market soon? Since you can mount the lenses of the new one, I can't see any risk. What am I missing?

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
2
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Possible duplicate of Canon t4i is being discontinued. Is it ok if I still buy it? \$\endgroup\$
    – scottbb ♦
    Commented Sep 20, 2018 at 16:55
  • \$\begingroup\$ The other question seems more concerned with the difference in available kit lenses that makes the older camera more attractive to the OP. In this case, the kit lens options are pretty much the same. \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Commented Sep 28, 2018 at 2:43

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
9
\$\begingroup\$

TL;DR: There is no risk in buying older generation Canon body.

Canon is known for the consistency of lens mounts and compatibility. They have 3 mounts for photography right now, 2+1 actually.

  • Oldest EF mount for fullframe.
  • Younger EF-S mount for crops.
  • Youngest EF-M mount for mirrorless.

EF lenses can be used on EF-S bodies directly, not vice versa! Other combinations are possible with proper adapters.

Both your bodies use EF-S mounts so there is no risk at all by using the older body. If I read the Canon designations right, the second one should be higher tier body (when same generations are compared) which compensates the differences in running-in and running-out bodies (when same tier is compared).

In other words, new EOS 1xxxD should be slightly better than EOS 4xxxD. It is possible, that the 4000D is slighty modified 1300D design, therefore the same specs.

Actually, old Canon FD mount lenses are directly mountable to EF and EF-S mount with only one drawback - there are no pins co connect to the body and camera thinks there is no lens mounted. It will work, but in all-manual mode (the lenses also lack motorised focus and apperture settings)

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
10
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ EF-M lenses can be used on EF cameras with an adapter that ignores the EF-S pin which prevents EF-S lenses from going into EF bodies. EF-S can also be used in EF bodies if you remove the pin: photo.stackexchange.com/questions/34235/… \$\endgroup\$
    – JonathanReez
    Commented Aug 6, 2018 at 18:05
  • \$\begingroup\$ @JonathanReez, You surely mean "EF-S lenses..." \$\endgroup\$
    – bogl
    Commented Aug 7, 2018 at 6:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ @bogl nope, EF-M too \$\endgroup\$
    – JonathanReez
    Commented Aug 7, 2018 at 7:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ @JonathanReez EF-S lenses can go deeper in the body than EF does because they are designed for smaller mirrors. The last thing you want is mirror hitting the inmost part of the lens... \$\endgroup\$
    – Crowley
    Commented Aug 7, 2018 at 7:03
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Negative, @JonathanReez. A mechanical adapter cannot reduce the flange distance of the EF mount. See photo.stackexchange.com/questions/49522/… . \$\endgroup\$
    – bogl
    Commented Aug 7, 2018 at 21:09
4
\$\begingroup\$

In the past what you could have missed would have been significant technological progress: better AF, better sensor, support for video, WiFi, Bluetooth, ... But progress is leveling off and there are less differences between camera generations now. To some extent cameras reach their end-of-marketing-life when they are at the lowest prices that their manufacturer is willing to sell them for, so they are a bargain at that point.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
4
\$\begingroup\$

The Canon 4000D has lower specs, and perhaps worst of all, a PLASTIC lens mounting interface, rather than metal. I assume their expectation is that the vast majority of users will leave the kit lens on at all times. If you expect to use multiple lenses, the plastic mount will not have the same longevity.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ Although useful to someone considering purchase, I feel this doesn't quite answer the question. The main question being "is there a risk to buying the older version?", with the secondary question "Why the older version be cheaper if it's the same spec, unless there is some risk?". The older cheaper version being better spec just compounds the secondary question. \$\endgroup\$
    – AndyT
    Commented Aug 8, 2018 at 9:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ It extends the question in a very useful way. Why criticise? SE is here to serve us... \$\endgroup\$
    – Laurence
    Commented Aug 9, 2018 at 13:03
  • \$\begingroup\$ As others had already explained, Canon does support their discontinued models. I was raising an important issue that the OP might not have factored into his decision; namely, that the older camera has significantly better specifications, particularly in regard to the lens mount. \$\endgroup\$
    – Byron Jones
    Commented Aug 9, 2018 at 13:18
2
\$\begingroup\$

As far as I can tell, the only difference between the two is that the 4000D has a slightly smaller screen than the 1300D, which makes it slightly lighter. As the weight difference is insignificant, this to me means that the 1300D is better.

What am I missing?

At a complete guess, if Canon are indeed replacing the 1300D with the 4000D, then they're trying to make their bottom of the range camera less appealing, in order to encourage more consumers to stump up the extra cash for the next level camera.

So buying the older 1300D while it is still available seems like the better option.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.