Haha...no, but I love it. However, I hate the fact I always seem to choose the expensive hobbies (cars, computers, and now photography). I can't win. lol :)

Thanks for the correction on the Rebel line. :)

I hadn't seen it personally because I picked up the 50D when I was upgrading at the time, but everyone was saying that the 40D handled noise much better than the 50D even though the 50D was newer, and Canon had put more effort into the noise reduction. This was due to the cramming of many more megapixels in the same effective area. So yea, the XT is 8mp versus 18mp of the T2i, but the physical sensor size is the same. But at the same time, I'm quite sure the T2i at 1600 is relatively clean even given that fact (which is counter to the 40D/50D debate) because of advances in noise reduction software, and even as you say...Lightroom 3 for post processing.

I agree with you about ISO being the new MP war, and seeing new bodies with less MP. I know we (the Canon community) were hoping prior to the 7D release and even specs were known, that they'd drop the MP back down to like 10 or 12mp. There was a huge debate about 18mp being too much for a crop body camera, but I think the 7D has turned out quite well. I just don't think there's anymore room left on that size of a sensor though, and this is where the ISO war is going to come into play.

I've seen this argument before, and frankly, the cameras we have today (even the point and shoots) are MILES above the top of the line film cameras from even a couple decades ago. Yet, somehow, the photographers from that era (and earlier) managed to get these shots that people think are impossible on lower end models of today. All it takes is a little understanding of your in most cases.

And no...a good photographer doesn't need all these options on the flagship models. A good photographer will know how to get the shot regardless. All these options do is make it easier to get the shots, but its not impossible otherwise.

That said, however, I'm going to negate what I just wrote by referencing what I said in an earlier reply... I shoot dog shows which are sometimes held indoors. The indoor shows have lighting which is absolutely horrible. I refuse to use flash even when permitted as I want to be as invisible as possible for the dogs sake. What this means is that I'm shooting at ISO3200 at f/2.8 and still only managing 1/60th at some venues. Not even close to being fast enough to properly freeze the action, but I fake it by letting the angles work for me or just taking pictures with them standing still (I shoot confirmation, not agility...so standing still is mostly what they do anyways). I've found that at worst 1/160th is what will freeze the action, with 1/200th being the slowest ideal...but I can't always get that.

With that said, you need a body that can shoot *clean* images at that high of an ISO, and that means shooting with a relatively top of the line body. In my case I'm shooting with the 5D Classic which has a nice large full frame sensor to give me insanely clean images and light gathering ability. The also means, that a lesser body (like even my old 50D) simply wont do. The banding on the 50D at 3200 just didn't work for me, and Rebels top out at 1600 (although I may be wrong as I haven't checked the newer Rebels like the T1i/T2i). So yes, in some areas gear will matter...to an extent. However, a good photographer can, will, and should be able to get the shot regardless of the gear they are using. That's why they are called professionals after all.

Not to mention no one says 10x zoom and the like in reference to SLR's. Sensor size and the lens itself determines the "zoom" capability. A 100-400mm lens is only a 4x zoom for instance, but 400mm will get you a pretty good distance. Also, those ranges are provided for 35mm equivalent (ie: full frame bodies). On a crop body such as a Rebel series, 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, 60D, and 7D the figures for the same lens end up as the equivalent to 160-640mm (1.6x crop factor).

This also leaves out the very important prime lenses like the 300mm, 600mm, and 800mm and even the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters which will modify the ranges or any of these lenses while retaining their zoom factor.

With a 2x teleconverter your 100-400 becomes a 200-800mm, but its still a 4x zoom. I'm not 100% on the math, but a common all around lens is something like an 18-270mm which works out to a 15x zoom (or thereabouts). It's zoom factor is obviously much greater than your 100-400, but falls well short (by 130mm) in terms of distance.

The zoom factor means very little in regards how much of the frame you can fill with your subject, however, its much harder with an SLR because you're going to be loaded down with lenses which cost as much as a decent used car, and at least with Canon's L series you're going to be the center of attention with your massive white painted lens. I think with as impossible as it is to conceal what you're shooting with these lenses, unless I guess from inside of a car like in the cool spy movies, this ban is quite pointless from a spy/surveillance standpoint.

Pretty much, and partly the reason I am shooting with a 5D now. I absolutely have no choice but to shoot at 3200 at some dog show events, and those images need to be clean and the action properly frozen. The XSi I used as my stepping stone into SLR's maxed out at 1600 and was noisy as hell. The 50D I had after that, when expanded, topped at 6400 IIRC but 1600 was pretty much tops for usable photos. There was some nasty banding I could not cleanup at 3200. So, in support of your argument, yes...there are times when the camera you shoot with will matter, but at the same time I tend to lean on the "It's the photographer, not the equipment" side of the camp more or less.

Thats ok, just switch to Geico and you could save...err you'll be at normal rates again!

No, but you have a human birth right of free will. No one can force you to do anything against your will. Obviously there can and/or will be penalties for exercising your right of free will at times, but thats a choice some people are willing to take in some areas.

Never I'm afraid. I'm even more afraid that they will, unfortunately, keep trying.

Sounds great, where can I sign up? Oh wait...

I know this is a late reply to this, but...

I never understood the point of these. Do they honestly expect people will be honest in their reply? I do pretty much the same as you, but if only for getting through it quicker by selecting a random year so long as its 18+ years or so I don't much care. It wouldn't matter if I were 50 or 5, this check does nothing but block usage of the website. They all need to be removed.

If that wasn't so true it'd be hilarious. Sadly, too, you can be assured that if/when MS does release a patch, they will wait until a Tuesday to do so.

...and the only thing I can say is:

LOL

dont forget the swiss army knife!