[quote=randymoe] favorite subject of mine.
Randy , is that the 850 Commando?

Count my vote for the Leica V-Lux 30. Very awesome.
Why? 14mp, 24-390mm with aspherical elements and image stabilized lens, 10fps and flash.
And to round out my Kit I would get the Colt 45 Auto! Why? Small, compact, 3 shots per second and just in case I run into the son-of-@*&#^ that stole my gear!! Both of these could handle any shoot.

Count my vote for the Leica V-Lux 30. Very awesome.
Why? 14mp, 24-390mm with aspherical elements and image stabilized lens, 10fps and flash.
And to round out my Kit I would get the Colt 45 Auto! Why? Small, compact, 3 shots per second and just in case I run into the son-of-@*&#^ that stole my gear!! Both of these could handle any shoot.

All jokes aside, Giclee prints are no longer the rarety that they used to be. Originally they were pioneered in the early 90's to mimic the look of offset printing at a time when digital was in it's infancy and only large very expensive inkjets were availiable for commercial purposes.
Today the name giclee is reserved for any print on inkjet that is of the highest quality available, meaning pigment inks and high quality matte and rag papers as well as others. Though usualy reserved for larger prints, any print of very high museum quality, archival materials would be giclee. The higher ink tank count will produce a more vibrant result because of the much wider color gamut that is not achievable with 7, 8 or 9 inks. For example the Canon Imageprograf series printers have 12 inks that include a blue. No consumer printer has a blue, they create blue by mixing. This is all you need along with some good paper to print your own Giclees. And yes, different labs will use diferent products to achieve what they call a giclee print. There are no set atandards. You will probably get what you pay for.

Ruth, are these two different?? Nature and 50mm don't usually go hand in hand. If you are trying to do macro with your 50, yes tubes would help. It won't make it a macro but it will allow you to get closer thereby being able to fill more of the frame. The more extension the closer you can get. You will lose your infinity focus. Birders use them with long lenses to get closer to small birds than their normal minimum focus distance would normally allow. It creates a sort of a crop camera effect. Your 50 is still a 50. As your DOF gets shorter you need to stop your lens down if you need more DOF. If you are shooting things w/o legs you could use straight tubes which are relatively inexpensive and shoot on manual. Check the specks on your lenses and use the one that has the most max. magnification. Keep in mind that as TV said the shorter the lens the more on top off your subject you will be. 50's tend to have very poor Max. magnification. For macro your longest lens would probably be your best bet.

Roger, I can't give you a desertation like Roger(well done Roger) but I will relate my real world experience. It's not at all scientific but I gave up using filters years ago except for snapshots. Years ago I was shooting some lights at night. The lights looked good so I would shoot and they would come out with these huge ugly halos around them. The lights didn't look that way but they came out on my lcd like that. After much frustration I took off my filter and have not used them since except for a polarizer and ND here and there. In daylight again I rarely have flare except with a filter on a lens(into the sun I use a hood). Could I trip and trash a lens ? Absolutely ! Could I crash my car and destroy all my gear and myself incuded? That's a chance we take when we get up in the morning. I keep my filters on most of the time and instead of taking off the lens cap I unscrew the filter with the cap attached which I keep pretty lose. Robert this does not give you anything scientific but I would not use a filter either cheap or expensive for the reasons mentioned. In rain or heavy fog I use a filter to finish sealing the lens. They are now just cheap glass uv's for protection when I'm not shooting.

Egglady
If you are talking wildlife go as big as you can afford. 300 is to short. All of those mentioned are L glass. They are ALL sharp. You are splitting hairs and reviews ! In the real world there is not much diff. And on a day with good light they are about the same. If you are on a budged get the 400 5.6. If You have the money get the 500 F4.
I have the 100-400 and the 500 on a FF and using a +1.4 they barely get birds. Big animals are better but I don't do much of that. If you use a crop of course it gets you much closer. You could drop the 1.4.
Just my $.o2

I used the efs 15-85 on my 20d for a year. Not that fast but very nice and fairly wide on a crop cam. It is L glass(not build) so a bit pricey at about $750. It will give you more than the 20d can deliver. So your fotos will be as good as they can get with your 20d.

[quote=renomike]

Reno and 48 and others
The new EF's came out with the EOS system. It's what enabled the auto focus in the lens and not the body. The old FD's can be used with an adapter. I almost bought a lens that had an adapter already on it. I did not get it or use it so have not actually used the adadter myself. But it is a .75mm thin adapter made by Ed Mika in Canada. It will allow for infinity focus and has no glass. It also has a chip on it so will give some meta data and I believe will allow your camera to chirp when focus has been found. If I owned an FD 50mm 1.2 or a long lens I would get this adapter. I belive they are around $150. Do a search for Ed Mika EF-FD adapters and you should find it. If one is just starting out and doesn't want to spend a ton of $$ on lenses it could be an easy way to get into it. FD's are a dime a dozen.
Hope this helps some of you.

Nat, Geesman is right. Learn to use your camera 1st. D'ont start in the middle. And when you do go manual make sure you know where that green square is. I have saved many shots like that. i.e. jump out of the car, put on auto and grab that shot. If it's still there them figure out how to make it better on some other setting.
I use manual focus mostly when in "live view" on magnification, very good for that. Learn AV and TV 1st then worry about manual. Don't worry, manual settings do not make you a pro and you will have plenty of time to get there.

Canoe
There is only one 100-400. It has IS and USM. If you are not in a hurry, Canon sells then "refurbished" on the "shop.usa.canon.com" website. I checked it and they are currently out of stock. Though they do have an additional 15% off. That would be a great deal. All the refurb stuff seems to always be brand new. I have bought several this way on this site. You just have to keep checking for when they come into stock. Good luck Canoe

No differance, same camera, same factory, same guy/gal made it. Was not distributed by Canon USA. In China a USA camera is grey market !

Mark, a good foto education is always a good idea, it can only help. All the suggestions are good ones. But Aha is right, istock usually gives you a reason. Most of the time rejection is not about composition. The writer is correct that istock is very, very picky. They demand that a photo be very technically perfect. The photo has to be shot that way. That means no hint of purple fringing, no blownout or underexposed areas, perfect focus and above all absolutely no noise at all. better no p/s at all. one will quickly bump up against the limits of ones equipment if it is not pro gear. When a customer buys an istock foto the customer knows they can use the photo any way they want and the photo will work no matter what they do with it since it has no imperfections. Best to leave areas with space to put captions or text. Many photogs work in studios in order to control all of those variables. Also they want model releases for everyone and everything. That includes recognizable trademarked items etc. Another reason to use a studio. What you may need is to take a course in shooting and submitting to stock photo sites. Also do a searh for subjects and submit where there are few photos for that particular subject. For example shrews instead of bears or Asian babies instead of Caucasian babies etc. There is money to be made once you figure it out and take a delibarate approach. Good luck

Hand , I can't help you with your shutter but I hope you can get it working. In the late 80's I owned two T-90's. I felt then and still think now that the T90 was Canons best camera. It started the ergo revolution. Good luck.

50, I went down a similar path but i shoot a full-frame. I own the cheap 70-200 non IS and a 100-400 but also a 500 in that order. If you shoot from a canoe I assume you are shooting birds. Your avatar is in fog, that would make a diff. I did a lot of birds with the 70-200 + 1.4. That is not near long enough . Yes you will miss the lentgh. I think the 300 is to short( hence my 500). I rarely use the 70-200 anymore. Only the 400zoom and the 500. almost always the 500 has a +1.4 on it. All of the 400's w/o 1.4 will shooot better than the 300+1.4. I like the 400zoom because it fits in a very small pack with lens attached and still room for a wide angle zoom plus basic stuff. The 70-200, 2.8 IS is heavier than the 400 but half as long. If you shoot in good light you wont need the speed. If you want a prime get the 400 prime. If you put a 1.4 on the 400's you will lose auto focus.My 1.4 has the contacts taped and it always autofocuses just fine. My recomendation is go as long as you can afford. My 400's are not long enough for birds. For birds you want to crop as little as possible or you will lose the feather details. Though you could probaly get away without the 1.4 since you have a crop camera which I do not. You would get a little better native detail. As for landscape none of the teles will be of much use. Hope this helps you a little.