johnson_d.

Since I live in a dusty environment and frequently have to deal dust on the sensor perhaps my feelings on the subject may be more applicable than those who have never had the problem. The 40D cleaning system is by no means perfect but it has noticeably decreased the frequency in which I have to clean my sensor. At best it's a small improvement but I'll take it. Still, a wet clean is trivial and doesn't take me more than 60 sec or so. You're flushing money and time down the toilet if you have someone do it for you.

We know. If Canon felt this were a worthwhile market to go after they would've gone after it. At the present time, they don't. It's as simple as that.

Marc,

 

If you lose files from one of your 1GB cards will you then revert to 512MB cards? I'm just wondering how far I should take this.

To equate "L" with remarkably superior image quality is somewhat silly to begin with. Canon's 100mm macro is a fantastic lens as it is. Your image quality concerns are completely misplaced.

Try correcting only the blue channel "underexposure" and see what happens. Another way to think about it - what would you expect if you took a picture of a red or green object (i.e. contains no blue)?

I would not "Try this -". Doing so serves no purpose if the camera is working great and your photos look fine. It sounds to me like you are good to go. No maintenance is required.

What are you using now?

LA to the California state line is fair distance (430km to Vegas and that's close to the minimum). Even if you are willing to make the drive both Nevada and Arizona will also charge a sales tax that isn't significantly less than the California rate. The difference will be in the 1% to 2% range at best.

 

The only practical way to avoid CA sales tax would be to make a purchase from a company that has no presence in CA and have them ship it to LA. You may be able to work this in advance if you are staying overnight in a hotel or if you know someone in the area.

My 50 mk I appears to be doing better than the rest of my investment portfolio.

 

There's one up on Amazon for $185. Seems crazy to me.

Stopped down to f/11 or so I've been able to get acceptable results from a 70-200 2.8 + 2x. Granted, this isn't a particularly easy combination to use.

I don't have any experience with the 30D but I believe the focus system is identical to that of the 20D, which I have used extensively. There is no question that the 40D is better. I haven't done any formal testing (and I never will) but I did experience a fairly noticeable increase in my success rate when I replaced my 20D with a 40D. The difference isn't huge but it's enough that I think the 40D is worthing the extra expense for this reason alone.

For what it's worth, the price of the 580EX II has dropped to about $350. This is a lot less than I recall and now actually seems worth the price differential over the 430. In fact, I just picked one up specifically for the extra head flexibility.

I was curious about the 580ex myself so I looked up the manual and it does not seem to have this limitation. It is able to rotate 180 degrees both clockwise and counterclockwise.

You can still shoot up and back if you rotate your camera to the other portrait position. But it does seem arbitrary and I also find it slightly annoying, especially when I want to hit a specific part of a wall or ceiling and it's not allowed.

Mendel just reminded me of something. The 24-70 is my second favorite "macro" lens, right behind my 100mm macro. I use mine for closeups more than I ever thought I would. It's versatile and excellent within it's magnification limits. In fact it's excellent across the board.

I've used my 70-200 2.8L as a "macro" lens for many years using various combinations of extension tubes, TC and close-up lenses. The main difficulty I had with this setup is that it's just too dang heavy to handhold at high magnification. I also felt that image quality near 1:1 left plenty to be desired. I eventually bought the Canon 100mm and would recommend a true macro lens if you care about the quality of your macro photos.

"deleting the images is not a good idea."

 

Why?

Shaun,

 

It would be hard to say that a different lens configuration would have made this particular image better. The obvious technical weakness is that it seems a little soft. That could be due to camera movement or maybe you are diffraction limited at the aperture you used. Overall though, I think what you have here is pretty good and with a little post processing it would be even better. You should be pleased.

Canon does not seem to have access to the full resolution image when displaying it in the playback mode so at full magnification you end up with a pretty crummy representation of the photo. This is a pet peeve of mine because there really isn't any reason why it shouldn't be easy to confirm focus using the LCD. "Live View" zoom demonstrates how nice it could be.

Brian,

 

I'm not sure why you are having a hard time finding one under $1k. It's $910 at Amazon, including shipping. $899 at B&H (+ shipping).

I'm with Beau. I'd snap up a 24-70 IS pretty much regardless of cost and weight.

I've owned the 20-35 at one point and thought it was a nice lens for the money, especially stopped down a little. I recommend spending more time thinking about what you need before proceeding any further however.

Interestingly enough, it is a legal requirement in many countries that camera phones make some sort of sound when pictures are taken, hence the "fake" shutter sound. I don't know if the same applies to cameras but the concern would be the same (privacy).

I unvote ECF. I like "Multi-controller direct" better.

What are you using now? You say you have noticed a huge difference between the two so what do you think? Is it worth it?

 

My answer is no, it's not worth it. But what do I know?