johnson_d.

My sources say no.

I have no such problem with my 40D but I have an RSS plate permanently attached. Maybe that would extend the bottom enough to prevent the problem?

I'd add to Larry's comment that including an 18-200mm is also an odd choice. Are you looking for a not so good at anything not so wide but flexible do it all lens or a wide angle? If you are really after a wide angle then the 10-20mm is the obvious choice from your list.

If you're worried, buy from a local dealer who has a good return/exchange policy. "Problem" solved.

Yes

What's the question?

I wouldn't consider it, no. The idea will follow Moore's law for silliness (doubling in silliness every 18 months) as DSLRs become more ubiquitous and aging film cameras die off.

The German war machine disposed of the inventor of Silicon Film? Interesting.

One option - Canon STE2 Speedlite Transmitter

Sounds like a good deal to me.

Pec pads, ecplise and an old credit card cut to size has served me well for years. Some care is warranted but it isn't rocket science.

Could it be that you hit the depth of field button and see the modeling flash? That's one of the first "features" I turn off because I'm always accidentally hitting that button.

Nikon puts the D up front, Canon puts it in the rear. Clearly, one position must be superior, but which one? The answer to this question will lead to enlightenment.

 

But seriously, what exactly is your complaint with the D40? What specifically about the image quality don't you like? The speed of what is not satisfactory?

I have used a single 500d with my 70-200 and while not bad I was never really happy with the results. It's also a fairly awkward setup given how heavy the lens and diopter are. Two diopters would be worse in both respects.

 

My feeling is that if you are carrying the 70-200 around anyway and just want something for opportunistic "macro" shots, this combination is ok. If you are serious about macro then a good macro lens would be well worth the investment. In fact, I'd question wisdom of investing that much money in two 77mm 500Ds when truly excellent dedicated macro lenses can be had for about the same cost or less. Canon's 50mm macro can be had for ~$250.

Is the example posted the full frame? If so, what you have there looks worse than anything I've ever produced using my 20D or 40D, including "boosted" underexposed long exposures at ISO 1600. If it's a small portion of the frame, the scale of the noise would at least be consistent with what I get.

A solid connection would be much more prone to failure. You can be fairly certain the "wiggle" is intentional so just think of it as a good thing and be happy that you own a reliable system.

Mine wiggles a little when I try to wiggle it. It doesn't wiggle on it's own though.

I once sold a 4 year old flash for $15 less than what I originally paid, including shipping and sales commission. So it ended up costing me less than $4/year, not a bad deal in my book. I thought that was crazy but 90% recovery is pretty typical for me when it comes to Canon gear. I don't get it but, hey, you don't hear me complaining because it allows me to try things on a whim without any real financial risk involved. I guess one should never underestimate people's willingness to save a buck.

Huh? No, I don't understand. My advice would be to quit screwing around and go take some pictures with whatever you currently have. Either that or just buy one of everything and be satisfied that there is nothing more.

Derek,

 

I don't disagree with the points you are trying to make but I do feel you singled out one of my comments somewhat inappropriately. In no way did I suggest that sharp and successful photos are mutually exclusive. Sharpness is important in many cases. What I do feel is that the relationship between sharp and success is not even close to being as important as many people seem to think. If it takes pixel peeping to determine photographic success then I would consider myself a failed photographer.

 

To Ian - I don't need to see any more detail to determine that those photos are superb. The 100% eyeball crop wise crack was just that, a joke ;)

Ian, I don't know. Show me a 100% crop of the eyes and then I'll decide if those photos are any good.

 

This whole "dilemma" is really quite silly. I'm not sure I believe it was serious to begin with.

I'd rather have a successful photo than one that's only sharp. My 50 1.8 is sharp enough wide open. Are you using one that you aren't happy with? What exactly is the dilemma? If it isn't good enough or not useful to you, and ultimately if anyone should know it's you, then get rid of it.

Now I'm curious to know how many screws the average EOS body contains. It that misplaced obsession? No, it's just simple curiosity.

 

There is nothing wrong with discussing anything you like but, given that this forum is listed as "Equipment, Canon EOS", I would expect and hope for a heavy bias toward discussions about equipment.

Nothing is wrong, in fact that's probably how most people feel. It just isn't the mindset of the EOS forum.

The point is to capture a scene with greater dynamic range than can be captured with a single exposure. In other words, by definition, multiple exposures are required. If that's not what you are trying to do then HDR really isn't the right tool as Mendel mentioned.