Could you use the Canon XSi to start photography business!

Only the size of the file is different. raw is raw..bypasses all the camera settings you set..image goes straight from processor to card..thus the name raw comes from.

yep, raw is raw. As long as the sensors are the same, handle noise the same and are attached to cameras that auto focus the same.

Stocky wrote in post #5524157
yep, raw is raw. As long as the sensors are the same, handle noise the same and are attached to cameras that auto focus the same.

I see what you did there...

Shooting wrote in post #5523604
Only the size of the file is different. raw is raw..bypasses all the camera settings you set..image goes straight from processor to card..thus the name raw comes from.

Yes, we're all aware of that. But it's not the JPEG settings that make a 40D outperform an XT

TLOWE,
Here's a simple truth for you...a person who is a good business person but a poor photographer is going to make more money in this business, part time or otherwise, than a person who is a good photographer but a poor business person.

From the stand point of doing this as a business, the camera you use is completely irrelevant. I'm not even using anything as fancy as a new XSi...I'm using an old XT and while I'm not "making a living" at it yet, I do make a few bucks here and there. More over, your skills as a photographer aren't even that critical...if you can focus the camera and not chop off anyones head in the process, the greater majority of people don't really notice the difference. If the shot (eyes) is blurry or the subject's skin is purple, yes, those things they notice, but beyond that, the rest is pretty subjective.

As an example, I know a few guys that do wedding photography for a living and while I'd like to say that most of them are very good at it, to quote Harry Potter, "I must not tell lies" LOL!!! Most of the guys I know that do wedding photography for a living really don't do very good work at all. They're not "artists", they are businessmen (sorry ladies...I don't know any women photographers at this point). They know how to "sell a product" and in this case the product is photography. In many cases I, as a photographer and artist myself, look at their work and most of it -to me- is often borderline mediocre at best...and sometimes it just stinks. However their clients are usually thrilled with the work and refer them to others. Why? Because most people really don't know what -GOOD- photography actually looks like.

Lots of people "own cameras", most don't have the slightest clue how to use them. Your average person gets a sharp picture of their dog licking his butt and because the picture is "sharp", they think it's "good" ("Aweee...ain't dat cute? Fluffy's licking himself again!" LOL!!!). When someone such as myself actually gets a shot of the dogs face with the eyes in focus, they're just floored because it's "such a great shot". Seriously...to your average person who isn't a photographer or artist, if the picture is "sharp" they think it's good.

It's also been my experience that very often the people who do the best photography work are those who consider themselves "amateurs" who do it for fun and because they love photography. They "care" about the images they create and often are more inclined to be a little creative. For people who do this for a day to day living however, in many cases it's "just a job" to them. Very often they've lost the passion for photography years ago (assuming they ever really had it to begin with) and each client is "just another number" so to speak. Get em in the studio, focus the camera, snap the picture, that'll be $75 please and your prints will be in the mail next week...NEXT! It's assembly line work. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but very often it's true. Go take a look at the work from 3 or 4 random "portrait studios" and quite often you will see very similar work...similar lighting, similar poses, everything shot at f/8, etc., etc., etc...quite bland and generic. Most people will have a couple of "show case" pieces hanging on the lobby walls, but if you look at the bulk of their day to day work, it's the same as the next, same as the last, same as the guy down the street. Very simply it's not about "creating something", it's about making money.

Anyways, to answer your question directly, yes an XSI is quite sufficient to start doing business with. From that stand point, it's not the camera (or the lens or the flash), it's the person using it.

Just my $.02 worth,
Jim

Fantastic post Jim. There are definitely pros out there who still have a passion for good shots but you are right that there's a lot of real hacks out there too.

You are absolutely right...there are many folks who have been doing this for years who still have a great love of photography. I probably should have added that somewhere in my little rant. I do know a guy, Michael Stienberg...he was the instructor for a workshop I took a while back...who is an excellent pro photographer and after all of his years of shooting (which are many), still has "the passion"...and it most definitely shows in his work.

But as you said, there are also a lot of hacks out there, many of whom are only in it for the money...I probably should have made more of an effort though to put more emphasis on the difference. Thank you for bringing that up.

Peace,
Jim

Walczak Photo wrote in post #5526750
TLOWE,
Here's a simple truth for you...a person who is a good business person but a poor photographer is going to make more money in this business, part time or otherwise, than a person who is a good photographer but a poor business person.

From the stand point of doing this as a business, the camera you use is completely irrelevant. I'm not even using anything as fancy as a new XSi...I'm using an old XT and while I'm not "making a living" at it yet, I do make a few bucks here and there. More over, your skills as a photographer aren't even that critical...if you can focus the camera and not chop off anyones head in the process, the greater majority of people don't really notice the difference. If the shot (eyes) is blurry or the subject's skin is purple, yes, those things they notice, but beyond that, the rest is pretty subjective.

As an example, I know a few guys that do wedding photography for a living and while I'd like to say that most of them are very good at it, to quote Harry Potter, "I must not tell lies" LOL!!! Most of the guys I know that do wedding photography for a living really don't do very good work at all. They're not "artists", they are businessmen (sorry ladies...I don't know any women photographers at this point). They know how to "sell a product" and in this case the product is photography. In many cases I, as a photographer and artist myself, look at their work and most of it -to me- is often borderline mediocre at best...and sometimes it just stinks. However their clients are usually thrilled with the work and refer them to others. Why? Because most people really don't know what -GOOD- photography actually looks like.

Lots of people "own cameras", most don't have the slightest clue how to use them. Your average person gets a sharp picture of their dog licking his butt and because the picture is "sharp", they think it's "good" ("Aweee...ain't dat cute? Fluffy's licking himself again!" LOL!!!). When someone such as myself actually gets a shot of the dogs face with the eyes in focus, they're just floored because it's "such a great shot". Seriously...to your average person who isn't a photographer or artist, if the picture is "sharp" they think it's good.

It's also been my experience that very often the people who do the best photography work are those who consider themselves "amateurs" who do it for fun and because they love photography. They "care" about the images they create and often are more inclined to be a little creative. For people who do this for a day to day living however, in many cases it's "just a job" to them. Very often they've lost the passion for photography years ago (assuming they ever really had it to begin with) and each client is "just another number" so to speak. Get em in the studio, focus the camera, snap the picture, that'll be $75 please and your prints will be in the mail next week...NEXT! It's assembly line work. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but very often it's true. Go take a look at the work from 3 or 4 random "portrait studios" and quite often you will see very similar work...similar lighting, similar poses, everything shot at f/8, etc., etc., etc...quite bland and generic. Most people will have a couple of "show case" pieces hanging on the lobby walls, but if you look at the bulk of their day to day work, it's the same as the next, same as the last, same as the guy down the street. Very simply it's not about "creating something", it's about making money.

Anyways, to answer your question directly, yes an XSI is quite sufficient to start doing business with. From that stand point, it's not the camera (or the lens or the flash), it's the person using it.

Just my $.02 worth,
Jim

WOW! All I have to say is AMEN Jim! You are very right! I agree, I see professionals that charge WAY too much for the same old crap! I on the other hand NOT being a proffesional like to be creative, do something different than the "last photographer" did! I have taken some excellent shots with my XSI! I see where people make posts about, "Oh what ISO did you have camera on"? Ok, let me say this, until I bought a really great camera & read the manual.....I NEVER HEARD OF ISO!!! Lol.............Dont get me wrong I have always had a "passion" for photography & being creative with it. Now Im to point I want to learn how to improve my photos a little more & just the basics of using my digital camera! Anyway Thanks so much for your reply! I agree 100% its the "shooter" not the camera! I bet other people on here also will agree!

hey Tlowe,

I'm glad you found some wisdom in my words and that I was able to help. If I may, I'd like to give you a couple more suggestions based on one of your comments...

The first thing I would suggest is to simply learn the ins and outs of good composition. Here is doesn't matter if you're using an $8000 1D Mark III or a $150 point and shoot. Understanding composition will do more for your photography than the most expensive gear on the planet.

Second to composition is understanding "light". In fact when I first started taking photography seriously, I actually took a drawing class so I could learn a little more about light and shadows...and it helped a great deal. As with composition, understanding light and shadow will do more for your images than expensive equipment will.

Now with those two things said, I would also like to add that much of learning how to use your camera is really simple mechanics and much of it really depends on what type of photography you choose to pursue. I wanted to mention this because when a lot of people get their first DSLR they seem to want to try and learn -everything- about it (myself included) and while there's nothing really wrong with this, a lot of folks also seem to get too hung up on the technical aspect of the equipment and loose sight of what photography is all about...taking pictures. Personally I pretty much grew up with a 35mm in my hands...an old Canon Ftb. This sucker doesn't have "Scene Modes" or even auto focus...the -only- thing the battery powers is the little onboard light meter! In other words, I really learned things the hard way. LOL!!! Now that I have my Rebel XT, I really don't even mess with manual modes unless I really have too (such as for studio portrait work and still life's, etc). Most of what I shoot is animals and wildlife and most of the time I have the camera in Aperture Priority mode with the lens wide open so I don't have to think too much about the "mechanics" of it all and I can simply concentrate on the subject...and I get much better pictures for it. For most of what I do, if I'm sitting there fiddling with the knobs and dials on the camera, chances are I've already missed the picture!

Basically what I'm saying here is that while learning and understanding your equipment is good, again it's the person behind it that takes the pictures. Learning the mechanics will come in time...but don't forget what photography is really all about .

Good luck to you!
Jim

What settings of 40D go into their raw compared to XT raw..NONE..ALL camera settings are bypassed. The sensor, autofocus, etc mentioned just makes the file bigger..NO SETTINGS are passed into the raw file..that is why it is called raw..so raw is raw no matter what camera it comes from.

Shooting wrote in post #5586029
What settings of 40D go into their raw compared to XT raw..NONE..ALL camera settings are bypassed. The sensor, autofocus, etc mentioned just makes the file bigger..NO SETTINGS are passed into the raw file..that is why it is called raw..so raw is raw no matter what camera it comes from.

Are you just baiting us to see how we'll react to such obvious untruths? All a RAW file is is the data straight out of the sensor. If the image is out of focus because the camera's autofocus system couldn't operate quickly enough, then that will be reflected in the final image. If the image is noisy, because the sensor had pixels crowded too close together or heated up too much, that will also be reflected in the final image. Hell, even the RAW formats are different between cameras; that's why things like Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw have to be updated every time a new camera is released.

So, since all cameras are actually exactly the same if you shoot in RAW, would you care to tell me why a 1DsIII runs $8000, while you can pick up a Rebel for less than a grand?

I use a Canon XTI and do very well with my weddings. So the new XSI should work well. Good luck. Don't let anyone tell you, you can't start your own business. It's not easy but very rewarding when you get it down! Aloha!

bieber wrote in post #5586336
Are you just baiting us to see how we'll react to such obvious untruths? All a RAW file is is the data straight out of the sensor. If the image is out of focus because the camera's autofocus system couldn't operate quickly enough, then that will be reflected in the final image. If the image is noisy, because the sensor had pixels crowded too close together or heated up too much, that will also be reflected in the final image. Hell, even the RAW formats are different between cameras; that's why things like Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw have to be updated every time a new camera is released.

So, since all cameras are actually exactly the same if you shoot in RAW, would you care to tell me why a 1DsIII runs $8000, while you can pick up a Rebel for less than a grand?

It costs so much because of all the extra features, etc..that affect the jpeg when processed. I bet you cannot name me one setting in your camera that is passed to the raw file..go to your menu and look down the list of color, sharpness, contrast, etc..and you tell me what setting is passed to the raw file..NONE..that is why they call it raw...they come out with different raw formats because they want to..sure the sensors are better with each camera and senses more stuff and put that in the raw file and that makes it bigger but that is not my point..my point is, all your camera settings in your menu are bypassed. Only the jpeg is produced from those settings...

Shooting wrote in post #5590589
It costs so much because of all the extra features, etc..that affect the jpeg when processed. I bet you cannot name me one setting in your camera that is passed to the raw file..go to your menu and look down the list of color, sharpness, contrast, etc..and you tell me what setting is passed to the raw file..NONE..that is why they call it raw...they come out with different raw formats because they want to..sure the sensors are better with each camera and senses more stuff and put that in the raw file and that makes it bigger but that is not my point..my point is, all your camera settings in your menu are bypassed. Only the jpeg is produced from those settings...

...and? First of all, those settings are contained in the RAW file, and if you tell a RAW converter to process an image as shot, it will use them. But seriously, what does all that have to do with anything? Better cameras aren't better because of the way they process JPEGs, they're better because of their sensors and their body features. So why in the world would you say that all cameras are the same if you shoot RAW?

Those settings are just in the exif data to show what your camera was set on..NONE of them are used in the making of the raw image, that is why it is called raw..it goes from sensor to card, bypassing the software processing in the camera..yes, better sensors which does nothing but capture more data for you to work with that makes the file size bigger..your sharpness, contrast, saturation, color, all your settings in the menu are logged but NEVER used..they are bypassed, that is why it is called raw..RAW data..
I didn't say all the cameras are the same..all RAW files are the same.