Right now, this is Canon's smallest pro body. It takes full-frame pictures which work perfectly with my lenses that were designed to be used with film-based cameras--most digital cameras crop the center of the image, reducing cropping and making wide-angle difficult. Pictures are 12.8 megapixels, which is large enough to make very nice poster-sized prints. Compared to my Canon 10D, my favorite feature is the large buffer; while it doesn't take as many pictures per second, it can take 60 pictures without pausing. My 10D could only take 9 pictures at a time, which caused me to miss a lot of wildlife shots. The only problem I've had with it is constant dust on the lens, requiring regular cleaning.

I bought this to replace my 28-135 IS lens, which still works fine except for the IS (which now jumps around when engaged, defeating the purpose). There's really not a huge difference between this and my 28-135, but having f/4 at the long end is nice. Currently, this lens is being repaired, because my cat knocked it off the table and bent the mount.

If you read my review at epinions you'll see that I was intimidated by this lens' size at first.  I'm more used to it now, and I don't mind lugging it around so much.  Strangers still comment on it though.  Almost all of my animal photos were taken with this lens.

A great lens that I bought after my first trip to Europe.  At the time, the only lens I had was the 28-80.  28mm isn't wide enough to take pictures of the European buildings in the very narrow streets.  Often, 17mm isn't wide enough either, but it's about as good as you'll find without getting a fisheye lens.  Here's a picture taken in a cemetery that shows the wide angle, and the extreme distortion that's caused when I take a photo angled up at all. 

I bought this lens for times when I wanted very short depth-of-field.  I also tend to use it with the extension tubes for macro photography, because the wide aperture makes a brighter display and makes it easier to focus.  This close-up of a bird's nest is a good example of this lens matched with the extension tubes.

I upgraded to this from the 380EX because the 580EX supports rotating the flash head in almost any direction. The 380EX had plenty of power, but I couldn't rotate it towards the ceiling if I was holding the camera vertically. This caused a problem several times when I was trying to take pictures for articles.

I have a similar set of camera equipment and have used this backpack for about a year--taken it hiking and all around Europe. It's big enough to hold everything you listed, and protects everything well--even in drizzle and snow. Here are the problems I have with this bag:

1. It's ludicrously big. You'll look silly wearing it, especially with a computer in it. Obviously I don't care about looking stupid. If you do, don't buy it.
2. You might be able to use it as carry-on. With a computer, it generally doesn't fit in the overhead. You can cram it under the seats of most large jets, but then you won't have room for your feet. You can't use it as carry-on on any small plane--not that you'll want to stow $10k in equipment.

So, it's got some problems, but if you have to lug all that equipment around, I don't know of a better backpack.

I hardly use either of these.  The 2.0x teleconverter isn't a good match to the 100-400 and creates unsharp images.

I don't do a lot of macro photography.  Maybe I would if I had a proper macro lens... These are a pain to use.  If I add them to a lens, the range I can focus in is drastically limited.  So, I can focus close, but turning the focus ring on the lens basically does nothing.  I have to physically move the camera or the subject.  Obviously, this doesn't work great with animals.

Older equipment

Got it for Christmas because I was tired of scanning film and didn't want to lug around my Canon for casual shooting.  It's a good little point-and-shoot.  See the review for more info.

I bought this as part of a kit because I didn't know anything about cameras.  It wasn't the cheapest and it wasn't the most expensive.  I'm still using it because it's still working and it does what I need.  Also, I like the silver/black look better than the all-black look of the new Canons.

Cheap.  Came with the Elan II-e kit that I bought.  Unsharp pictures, no image stabilization.  Still, if you're just scanning pictures in for the Web, it's probably good enough.  All the non-telephoto pictures taken in Paris and London were taken with this lens.

Cheap, too.  Especially bad at 300mm.  Still, I appreciate it's light weight now that I deal with the huge 100-400mm lens.  This snapshot was taken with this lens at 300mm.

My most used lens.  This is Canon's only lens in this zoom range that has image stabilization, so for me there isn't another choice.  Most of the photos of Sammy, Toby and the guinea pigs were taken with this lens.

A great scanner.  Read my review for more details.  It has saved me hundreds of dollars, because I can get away with getting film developed but not getting prints.  So, developing film costs me $2.50 per roll instead of about $16.

I wish the head rotated like the new 430EX does.  It's way better than the built-in flash, but still causes red eye in cats.  I really never use the off-camera shoe cord because it takes too long to hook up, and I don't have a bracket, anyway.

A cheap scanner.  No good for scanning photographs smaller than 5x7.  Get a film scanner.

Good consumer film, available in lots of places.  Nowadays I used Fuji Reala instead because I like the way the Fuji scans better.  It wasn't until I got the film scanner that I appreciated the difference between 400 speed film and 100 speed film.  400 speed film is much grainier, and much less sharp.  I still use 400 speed film when I couldn't handhold the camera with slower-speed film.  

I prefer 100 speed film, specifically Fuji Reala, but the extra speed of the 400 is important for telephoto and animal shots.  See, animals move, so image stabilization isn't always enough to steady the shot.

Very grainy.  I only use it when I really, really need the extra speed.  DON'T TAKE THIS FILM THROUGH THE AIRPORT X-RAY SYSTEMS!!

I gave up shooting black and white when I got the film scanner.  Now I prefer to convert color shots to B&W.  

I use this when shooting in very dim natural light.  Using this with an image stabilized lens gives me a lot of flexibility for hand-holding.  DON'T TAKE THIS FILM THROUGH THE AIRPORT X-RAY SYSTEMS!!