Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I noticed something in Canon's line-up of DSLRs:
A few years ago they made the EOS 1300D which had WiFi, Bluetooth, and NFC. When you look at the newer EOS 4000D, they removed all of these features and changed the lens mount from metal to plastic.
Why are they making the entry level worse and worse? Are they not supposed to make entry level cameras good/better so more and more people can get into photography with entry level models?
The direct replacement for the 1300D (the Rebel T6 in the USA) is the 2000D (Rebel T7 in the USA), which is an incremental improvement over the 1300D; the 4000D represents a new model line below, and consequently even cheaper than, the 1000D/1100D/1200D/1300D/2000D line.
This can also been seen in the launch price of the cameras: the 1300D and 2000D both launched at $549 in the USA, the 4000D at $385. You can't expect the same quality for 70% of the price, even with a couple years of improvements.
Source: DPReview's articles on the launches: 2000D and 4000D, 1300D.
While Philip's answer talks about why you cannot compare cameras of different levels with each other without considering their price (in short: the 2000D is the successor to the 1300D, while the 4000D is a line even below the 1300D/2000D line), I want to answer the question:
Are they not supposed to make entry level cameras good/better so more and more people can get into photography with entry level models?
The most obvious and most important limit to get into something for virtually everyone is money. You can see that throughout the history of photography. In its early stages, it was incredibly expensive, and therefore, only well-off people could become photographers. As the understanding of the chemistry behind film emulsion and development improved and the process was automated, photography got cheaper, meaning that more people could use it.
Better products might lead to people migrating to this from older technology - for example, a lot of professional photographers waited for digital to become better suited for their use than film before adapting it.
Cheaper products might lead to people entering something. If you cannot (or do not want to) afford $5000 for a 1DX Mark II, you might still be able to afford a $385 4000D. Both take pictures, both offer auto-focus, both offer RAW support, both offer interchangeable lenses, both should have better image quality than a smartphone at the same price point. Okay, I do not know a smartphone that is sold at $5000, but you get the point ;-)
Are Canon entry DSLRs getting worse and worse?
Yes. Yes they are.¹
They're also getting cheaper and cheaper.
Consider this:
The 1300D, which had more features than the 4000D does, was listed at $549
The 2000D, which is an incremental improvement over the 1300D, is also listed at $549.
For the same amount of money, the newer model is slightly better.
The 4000D, which has fewer features than the older 1300D, is listed at $385.
The new Canon 4000D is not a 'replacement' for any previously existing model.
In exchange for fewer features, Canon is selling a newer camera model line for 30% less money.
So in effect, Canon has given consumers an additional choice: having their cake or eating it. You seem to want them to let you have your cake and eat it too by giving you the $549 camera for $385. That's unrealistic.
¹ In terms of features and build quality. On the other hand, the sensor in the $349 4000D is the same one as the $549 1200D's sensor. It's also much better than the sensor that debuted in the original Digital Rebel/300D for $999 back in 2003! The 300D didn't have as many features as the 4000D, either.
