Squirrel Killer
New member
I had hoped my first post here would be to announce a fest entry...
I had hoped my first post here would be to announce a fest entry...
...but it was not to be. I just couldn't let this thread go by.
Let's start with first things first. Is the Digital Rebel XTi/500D/etc... a professional camera?
Yes and no. Yes, I know professional photographers who use one, and yes, you can get professional results out of it, but no, it's not considered a professional camera. Professionals tend to use consumer-grade bodies as second bodies on a location shoot where you don't want to be swapping lenses all the time, but the pro bodies will be their workhorses.
Unsavvy clients will see everything you're doing not related to the camera body (lighting, backgrounds, test shots, custom white balancing, etc...) and think nothing of the body. Throw a hotshoe flash (even if it's turned off) and a red striped EOS neck strap from B&H, and they'll convince themselves that the body is "professional." However, the body will scare the crap out of savvy clients.
So why is it unprofessional? Is it because it takes bad images?
Everything else being equal, you're going to be hard pressed to tell the difference between an image out of a 400D vs a 30D or a 550D vs a 7D. The differences between the consumer and professional bodies has less to do with image quality than with features. With the pro bodies, you get better construction, bigger bodies, more robust burst modes, bigger and brighter viewfinders, better ergonomics, weather sealing, longer shutter lifespans, and, if you go high end enough, bigger sensors. You're not going to be limited by the quality of images you take with the 500D, you're going to be limited by how easy it is to take those photos.
So what's the difference that make a photographer a pro?
Skill. But as it relates to your apparently client perception focused concerns, lighting and lenses. More so for reasons of practicality than style, I shoot almost entirely natural light, so I can't really speak much to lighting except to recommend reading http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/.
As for lenses... whoo boy, this is what made me register. From some of the comments, it sounds as if the only things that matter are focal length and aperture, and this (in talking about the EF-S 18-55mm IS) is just flat out wrong:
Beyond that admitted nitpicky point, different lenses have different optical qualities. Professional lenses are sharper, introduce less distortions, are more resistant to flare, generate less chromatic aberration (zoom in on a shot from your kit lens where there's a lot of contrast, see the purple border between the dark and light areas? That's chromatic aberration), always allow for manual focusing, have weather sealing, and are better constructed. There's a reason Canon currently offers four different 50mm primes.
The thing about prime lenses, is that because they don't have to zoom, they can be made cheaper and the optics can be designed for that one particular focal length. On lower end zooms, like your kit lens, you will be able to see barrel distortion at the short end. Look for a vertical line near an edge, the curvature will be distinct. On the long end, it will probably be less noticeable, but you may see pincushioning, essentially the opposite of barrel distortion. (Both kinds of distortion can be fixed in post.) Primes don't have to make those kinds of design compromises.
Finally, if you're a photography amateur, don't put it on your list of professional services. You say you're going to offer it to your website clients, so use your developing skills as a way to over-deliver. Listing it as a professional service will make your clients hold you to a higher standard that you may not be able to reach yet.
I had hoped my first post here would be to announce a fest entry...
...but it was not to be. I just couldn't let this thread go by.
Let's start with first things first. Is the Digital Rebel XTi/500D/etc... a professional camera?
Yes and no. Yes, I know professional photographers who use one, and yes, you can get professional results out of it, but no, it's not considered a professional camera. Professionals tend to use consumer-grade bodies as second bodies on a location shoot where you don't want to be swapping lenses all the time, but the pro bodies will be their workhorses.
Unsavvy clients will see everything you're doing not related to the camera body (lighting, backgrounds, test shots, custom white balancing, etc...) and think nothing of the body. Throw a hotshoe flash (even if it's turned off) and a red striped EOS neck strap from B&H, and they'll convince themselves that the body is "professional." However, the body will scare the crap out of savvy clients.
So why is it unprofessional? Is it because it takes bad images?
Everything else being equal, you're going to be hard pressed to tell the difference between an image out of a 400D vs a 30D or a 550D vs a 7D. The differences between the consumer and professional bodies has less to do with image quality than with features. With the pro bodies, you get better construction, bigger bodies, more robust burst modes, bigger and brighter viewfinders, better ergonomics, weather sealing, longer shutter lifespans, and, if you go high end enough, bigger sensors. You're not going to be limited by the quality of images you take with the 500D, you're going to be limited by how easy it is to take those photos.
So what's the difference that make a photographer a pro?
Skill. But as it relates to your apparently client perception focused concerns, lighting and lenses. More so for reasons of practicality than style, I shoot almost entirely natural light, so I can't really speak much to lighting except to recommend reading http://www.strobist.blogspot.com/.
As for lenses... whoo boy, this is what made me register. From some of the comments, it sounds as if the only things that matter are focal length and aperture, and this (in talking about the EF-S 18-55mm IS) is just flat out wrong:
F-stop are a ratio, so at a constant f-stop, as you increase your focal range, the iris gets wider (to a point.) For example on the EF-S 18-55mm IS, let's say you're shooting a landscape at 18mm f/8. You want to get a different look, so you drop to a knee to bring some foreground in to frame, zoom in to 35mm, still at f/8. Then you spot something interesting in the foreground, so you zoom in to 55mm, still at f/8. You're reaching the end of the lens's focal range, but iris has opened from 2.3mm at 18mm, to 4.4mm at 30mm, to finally 6.9mm at 55mm. What has also happened, however, is that your maximum f-stop has decreased. At 18mm, your maximum f-stop is f/3.5, as you zoom out, it drops, first to f/4, then to f/5.6. In that case, take the previous example, but at f/3.5 instead of f/8. At 18mm, the iris is 5.1mm. At 35mm, the lens can't open up to 10mm to support f/3.5, so it only opens to 8.8mm for an f-stop of f/4. At 55mm, once again the lens can't support an iris width of 13.8mm to support f/4, so it opens to 9.8mm for an f/5.6. Here again, the iris is opening, not closing.
Beyond that admitted nitpicky point, different lenses have different optical qualities. Professional lenses are sharper, introduce less distortions, are more resistant to flare, generate less chromatic aberration (zoom in on a shot from your kit lens where there's a lot of contrast, see the purple border between the dark and light areas? That's chromatic aberration), always allow for manual focusing, have weather sealing, and are better constructed. There's a reason Canon currently offers four different 50mm primes.
Bokeh is the out of focus areas in a photograph. Good bokeh is largely a matter of taste, but generally speaking, evenly dispersed, rounded areas of "out of focusedness" are considered better. I just downloaded a 45 page paper from Zeiss that explains how bokeh is produced, but for simplicity's sake, it's largely a function of the number and shape of the aperture blades.
f/1.8 vs f/5.6 at 50mm is huge and is alone worth spending the money and dealing with more gear. It's more than 3 stops faster. I was at a dark wedding reception and used the 50mm f/1.8 to take a wonderful portrait at ISO 1600, 1/30 sec, f/1.8, and a steady hand. That was the absolute limit for my camera, my handholding ability, and my subjects' stillness. I literally could not have taken that shot with the kit lens without severely underexposing. Even at 18mm and f/3.5, I just didn't have that roughly stop and a half to get a decent image. Add in the sharpness, lack of distortion, and the price, and it's almost always worth it to pick it up.
The thing about prime lenses, is that because they don't have to zoom, they can be made cheaper and the optics can be designed for that one particular focal length. On lower end zooms, like your kit lens, you will be able to see barrel distortion at the short end. Look for a vertical line near an edge, the curvature will be distinct. On the long end, it will probably be less noticeable, but you may see pincushioning, essentially the opposite of barrel distortion. (Both kinds of distortion can be fixed in post.) Primes don't have to make those kinds of design compromises.
Finally, if you're a photography amateur, don't put it on your list of professional services. You say you're going to offer it to your website clients, so use your developing skills as a way to over-deliver. Listing it as a professional service will make your clients hold you to a higher standard that you may not be able to reach yet.
