I have to rethink my camera decision (7D vs 5d Mark II)

[Kernuak]

The biggest disadvantage I have found with the 7D, is softening at narrow apertures, due to the diffraction limited affects, resulting from the small pixel size. In fact, that was the reason I ended up getting the 5D MkII for my landscape work.

You don't need and shouldn't be using such narrow apertures on crop for landscape shots. Remember that for an identical FoV crop has 1.6x more DoF, so you don't need to stop down as much. In fact, for a given FoV and DoF diffraction does not impact any format more than the others. This is true for everything from 4/3rds to LF.

On any format it is beneficial to know and use hyperfocal distances. A typical 35mm shooter might choose f/16 for a landscape. A crop shooter might use f/11 in that instance. But a hyperfocal crop shooter might end up with f/8 or even f/5.6. He would get more and sharper fine detail than either of the other two yet still have sufficient DoF.

It's a very blanket statement to say that you shouldn't use such narrow apertures on crop cameras, it depends on the actual landscape, focal length and to a lesser degree the actual lens used. Also, hyperfocal distance isn't always appropriate to use. While I started paying more attention to hyperfocal distance when I got the 7D (and still do), if there is a cliff smack bang in front the lens about half a mile away, it's pretty pointless trying to get infinity focus at the expense of nearby detail. I also do some micro-landscapes, where hyperfocal focusing is completely useless and DoF is even more critical, plus there is generally more fine detail which is affected by softness. Also, f/11 on a 50mm lens wasn't always narrow enough to get sufficient DoF, even using hyperfocal focusing. Additionally, there are few modern lenses that have detailed enough distance scales to accurately judge the focal distance selected. You could argue that I could have chosen different subjects to make better use of the abilities of the 7D and I did for a while to experiment and try new things, but for rocky seascapes, the wide open landscape is the best option, which requires a lot of DoF, with a sharp detailed foreground.
Since getting the 5D, I find that I tend to frame differently, tending to go for a wider FoV, so essentially using the same focal length as on the 7D. As I am restricted to the same standing points (due to the high tidal range and inability to swim with gear on), the DoF is actually greater on the 5D than the 7D. Also, I still have the same options as with the 7D (albeit at a longer focal length), so I have greater flexibility.
I did once see some quoted DLA figures for different cameras and for the 7D I believe it was wider than f/5.6, so it doesn't take long to start seeing the effects of diffraction when shooting landscapes, if that is the case. While it isn't the whole story and acceptable sharpness is quite subjective (and less of an issue for landscapes to some degree), it is something to take into account. I'm not one to get hung up on so called scientific data (I have a scientific background), but the results I was getting spoke for themselves.

 

[awinphoto]

It was better in every way and I had no noticed any lens distortion during my testing. It wasn't until I was in a more linear environment (my house) that I noticed it. However, I paid a lot less for the 17-40mm than the I would have for the 17-55mm. I paid $600 for it which is about half the price. It's ridiculous to say I'm foolish for not paying twice the price that did not compete. The aperture is not something I tested with the lens when I compared the two, I was in a controlled lighting environment. On top of that, I already own a f/1.4 50mm which I mentioned several pages ago. The 2.8 is enough for indoors for me. No need to act condescending and rude about it, dude.

As for your other suggestions, they are very good and I'll consider trying them. I wish I could afford TS lenses, but that's for later on.

I wasn't intending on being condescending and or rude, I was just seeking clarification about how you said you had it, tested it, and loved it and then "just got it" the other and are having buyers remorse. Do keep in mind regarding distortion... this lens is designed as a 17-40 on a full frame camera... 17mm on any camera will have some level of distortion... Same as the 17-55 in some regards on the 17 end, as well as lets say the tokina lens and the 16-35 I or II... The full frame will show the distortion more than crops, but it's still there. Shooting parallel will help diminish the distortion however if you are wanting no distortion, post production will be a must. Some lenses to keep in consideration that will have fast(er) speeds and keep distortion in check (20mm 2.8, 24mm 1.4, 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.4, they are all within the range of the 17-40, should keep distortion better in check, and 2.8 or faster) It's a great outdoors/travel/walk-around lens, but indoors, you will need to have a fast prime if you really want to shoot handhold. I do architecture (one of my specialties) and real estate photos... I shoot with the 10-20 and 17-40... But then again I shoot low apertures, tripod always, and they are static. Sometimes if I cant shoot tripod I still use low ISO but throw in off camera flash or strobe. Light will always be an issue indoors so either use a faster lens or use a flash (ideally either strobe or off camera flash). The 7D has a great commander feature if you can pick up some 580's or 430's... scatter them around the scene out of view from the camera and you never have to worry about lack of light.

I never said it was foolish not getting the 17-55... I said I liked the 17-40 personally, however you need to really and fully know it's capabilities and limitations to get the most out of it. By going in a shoot fully educated on your gears limits will allow you to forward think so you know how to counter the limitations and push the limits to get awesome shots. Also remember the 17-40 can be used by the 7d and 5d whereas the 17-55 can only be used on crop cameras. Regarding your expectations of high ISO, check out the link i posted earlier... it'll give you a good idea of what this camera can do not only against itself but competitors.

 

[dtaylor]

However, the results I got were similar to the review test (here) 12800 ISO. It was pretty bad.

Then you underexposed by at least 2 stops giving you the same noise as a 12800 shot. I consider 3200 quite usable on the 7D. 6400 might make a decent 8x10 in a pinch. But 12800 is not usable IMHO.

It looked like this, though honestly I'd complain if it was equal to the 3200 too.

You wouldn't complain at all if someone took the full 3200 test image and printed an 8x10. Pixel peeping vs. prints. On top of that it's possible to get better noise and fine detail out of ISO 3200 using RAW. In their test they choose an area of relatively fine detail yet used JPEG and left in camera NR at its default setting. Naturally this smeared detail. This would be handled far better by Adobe Camera RAW than the camera's JPEG engine.

 

[awinphoto]

I do think I didn't have the shutter slow enough. It just shocked me to see that much noise.

Yes, high ISO noise is not too pleasant... however the test does show characteristics of the noise vs other cameras... 5d, being a bigger sensor, only besting the 7D by 1 stop. I understand we want to limit noise but then again we also have to understand how far we've come... "back in the day" with film, ISO 1000 was pretty much unprintable bigger than 5x7 and even with that, it was a grainy mess... (Keep in mind that was with over 40-50 year technology and development of film, that was the best they can do for high ISO film) It was a nice special effect but that was all it was, a special effect. Now the same film probably has ISO 6400 characteristics on the 7D. When looking at that perspective, I find shots very usable up to ISO 2000.. maybe 3200 if I like a shot and want to take the time to do the appropriate post. As others said, High ISO requires perfect exposure. To be honest, as your school will tell you when you go there, you NEED to use a separate light meter to meter the scene appropriately. Also Auto ISO, it is a pain to get that sucker to over expose when you want it to, it will tend to try to underexpose it, so by having that external meter, you can set it to full manual everything and ensure proper exposure.

 

[dtaylor]

It's a very blanket statement to say that you shouldn't use such narrow apertures on crop cameras, it depends on the actual landscape, focal length and to a lesser degree the actual lens used.

You said that diffraction hurt your 7D images more than your 5D2 images. But diffraction is the same for a given FoV and DoF regardless of format. If you see more diffraction in your 7D shots then you're stopping down too far.

Also, hyperfocal distance isn't always appropriate to use. While I started paying more attention to hyperfocal distance when I got the 7D (and still do), if there is a cliff smack bang in front the lens about half a mile away, it's pretty pointless trying to get infinity focus at the expense of nearby detail.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. In this specific scenario a half mile away is effectively infinity for WA glass. But in the general scenario that your near to far range isn't very large, you don't need to stop down as much any way. Unless of course we're talking about macro ranges. But the same rule still applies.

I also do some micro-landscapes, where hyperfocal focusing is completely useless and DoF is even more critical, plus there is generally more fine detail which is affected by softness. Also, f/11 on a 50mm lens wasn't always narrow enough to get sufficient DoF, even using hyperfocal focusing.

That's all fine and good, but none of it violates what I've stated above.

Additionally, there are few modern lenses that have detailed enough distance scales to accurately judge the focal distance selected.

LiveView is a very useful tool for this.

You could argue that I could have chosen different subjects to make better use of the abilities of the 7D and I did for a while to experiment and try new things, but for rocky seascapes, the wide open landscape is the best option, which requires a lot of DoF, with a sharp detailed foreground.

Rocky seascapes are my specialty. When using my 7D I rarely stop down more than f/8. f/11 is the limit. This is with my camera on the ground and desired DoF ranging from the sand 1 ft in front of the lens to the horizon.

Since getting the 5D, I find that I tend to frame differently, tending to go for a wider FoV, so essentially using the same focal length as on the 7D. As I am restricted to the same standing points (due to the high tidal range and inability to swim with gear on), the DoF is actually greater on the 5D than the 7D.

But this wouldn't be true if you had a wider lens on the 7D.

I did once see some quoted DLA figures for different cameras and for the 7D I believe it was wider than f/5.6, so it doesn't take long to start seeing the effects of diffraction when shooting landscapes, if that is the case.

Diffraction limits extinction resolution at f/8 on the 7D, and f/12 on the 5D mkII. Note that for the same FoV, DoF on the 7D at f/8 roughly equals DoF on the 5D2 at f/12.

In practice, for critically reviewed 24" landscape prints, I obtain acceptable fine detail and sharpness at f/11 on the 7D. I can see the diffraction effects while pixel peeping the RAW file, but they do not impact the final print. f/16 is more narrow than I care to go. On FF I find f/16 usable and f/22 unusable. But then on FF I need to stop down that extra stop to match the 7D's DoF.

 

[dtaylor]

As others said, High ISO requires perfect exposure. To be honest, as your school will tell you when you go there, you NEED to use a separate light meter to meter the scene appropriately.

The built in spot meter is pretty effective once you learn how to use it.

Also Auto ISO, it is a pain to get that sucker to over expose when you want it to, it will tend to try to underexpose it, so by having that external meter, you can set it to full manual everything and ensure proper exposure.

Auto ISO is worthless. Should have mentioned that earlier.

 

[awinphoto]

The built in spot meter is pretty effective once you learn how to use it.

Also Auto ISO, it is a pain to get that sucker to over expose when you want it to, it will tend to try to underexpose it, so by having that external meter, you can set it to full manual everything and ensure proper exposure.

Auto ISO is worthless. Should have mentioned that earlier.

The spot meter is ok for people who understand what the reflective spot meter is doing.... For someone who doesn't can easily under expose or over expose depending on the situation... The spot meter is still not as accurate in overall readings and effectiveness than an incident meter. Reflective meters measures 18% gray and reflect only what it sees reflected whereas incident meters read the actual quantity/quality of light entering a scene, hence more accurate overall. Sekonic just had a really interesting webinar regarding metering systems with cameras spot meters and sekonics incident meters.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yes, high ISO noise is not too pleasant... however the test does show characteristics of the noise vs other cameras... 5d, being a bigger sensor, only besting the 7D by 1 stop.

One comment about the ISO noise tests you commonly see - they tend to under-represent the noise you would see in real-world situations. Total light gathered is the primary determinant of noise, in an inverse proportion (more total light, less noise, which is why a FF sensor has less noise). However, the duration of the exposure (integration time) also matters - shorter exposure, less noise. You can see that most easily with very long exposures, where dark frame subtraction is used to cancel out some of the noise.

Typical ISO noise tests are performed with constant lighting, so when you compare noise at ISO 100 with noise at ISO 3200, if the ISO 100 shot was taken with a 1/60 s exposure, the ISO 3200 shot was taken with 1/2000 s exposure - that short exposure somewhat mitigates the increased noise at higher ISOs. Importantly, that's not representative of the normal situations when high ISO is used, i.e. we don't shoot at ISO 1600 if there's plenty of light, but rather we bump up the ISO when light is limiting, and that situation is not duplicated in most testing scenarios.

 

[dtaylor]

However, the duration of the exposure (integration time) also matters - shorter exposure, less noise.

For all intents and purposes this only matters once you get into exposures that are too long to handhold. For low ISOs you're talking about multiple seconds. For high ISOs you're talking about a half second or more. There's no real difference between, say, 1/500s and 1/30s at ISO 3200.

Imaging Resource ISO tests illustrate this and also address your underlying complaint. Their fastest exposure in the 7D series, for example, is 1/83. That's for the 12800 11 lux test.

 

[awinphoto]

shorter exposure, less noise. You can see that most easily with very long exposures, where dark frame subtraction is used to cancel out some of the noise.

From what I understand, back with the early digitals, yes, long exposures could lead to noise, as well as film... however, for example, this last 4th of july, I shot with my 7D in a scenic area overlooking a casino that launches fireworks every year, with my 70-200 on a locked down tripod... ISO 100 with 8-30 second exposures... No noise... I would have to wait til this evening to upload 100% clips of the shot, they are on another computer, but I can upload an overall (combined shots with a base shot plus a handful of fireworks blended in... The base shot was 10 seconds of the building.) Long exposure noise is pretty much a moot point anymore...

 

[neuroanatomist]

shorter exposure, less noise. You can see that most easily with very long exposures, where dark frame subtraction is used to cancel out some of the noise.

From what I understand, back with the early digitals, yes, long exposures could lead to noise, as well as film... Long exposure noise is pretty much a moot point anymore...

With the C.Fn for long exposure NR set to Auto, dark frame subtraction is applied automatically to exposures of 1 second or longer, "...if noise typical of a long exposure is detected," (quote from the 7D manual, p. 208). So I guess Canon doesn't think long exposure noise is a moot point...

 

[awinphoto]

shorter exposure, less noise. You can see that most easily with very long exposures, where dark frame subtraction is used to cancel out some of the noise.

From what I understand, back with the early digitals, yes, long exposures could lead to noise, as well as film... Long exposure noise is pretty much a moot point anymore...

With the C.Fn for long exposure NR set to Auto, dark frame subtraction is applied automatically to exposures of 1 second or longer, "...if noise typical of a long exposure is detected," (quote from the 7D manual, p. 208). So I guess Canon doesn't think long exposure noise is a moot point...

I just checked my 7D... long exposure NR is set to OFF.... still no noise

 

[awinphoto]

shorter exposure, less noise. You can see that most easily with very long exposures, where dark frame subtraction is used to cancel out some of the noise.

From what I understand, back with the early digitals, yes, long exposures could lead to noise, as well as film... Long exposure noise is pretty much a moot point anymore...

With the C.Fn for long exposure NR set to Auto, dark frame subtraction is applied automatically to exposures of 1 second or longer, "...if noise typical of a long exposure is detected," (quote from the 7D manual, p. 208). So I guess Canon doesn't think long exposure noise is a moot point...

Just to be clear, it's CF 2, setting 1, it is set to off. This is just not that big of a deal. Personally I dont really trust in camera NR due to smearing that was famous with the 5d II so I usually turn NR to off or low if i have the option to do NR in post if needed.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I just checked my 7D... long exposure NR is set to OFF.... still no noise

I'm glad you don't see noise in your shots in your applications, but it doesn't mean it's not there. Noise is present in every image, but the amount obviously varies, as does the impact, and the latter is certainly dependent on the application (cropping, on-screen viewing, small prints, large prints, pixel peeping, etc.).

Long exposure noise is different than high ISO noise, in that the former is reproducible for a given exposure time and sensor temperature, whereas the latter is random. Thus, long exposures can have NR applied quite effectively in-camera (the computation is very simple, literally just subtracting the e- recorded at each photosite in the dark frame from the same photosite in the image). NR for high ISO is much more computationally intensive, and a computer will do that better than the on-board chipset. Also, post-processing NR for long exposures is not the same as NR for ISO noise. Unless you plan ahead and shoot a dark frame, you can't do long exposure NR in post. Many astrophotographers keep libraries of dark frames at various exposure times and temperature conditions and apply those in post, because it speeds up the image capture (i.e. you can just take a set of 30 s exposures abck to back, instead of the in-camera process of 30 s exposure followed by a 30 s dark frame).

 

[awinphoto]

I just checked my 7D... long exposure NR is set to OFF.... still no noise

I'm glad you don't see noise in your shots in your applications, but it doesn't mean it's not there. Noise is present in every image, but the amount obviously varies, as does the impact, and the latter is certainly dependent on the application (cropping, on-screen viewing, small prints, large prints, pixel peeping, etc.).

Long exposure noise is different than high ISO noise, in that the former is reproducible for a given exposure time and sensor temperature, whereas the latter is random. Thus, long exposures can have NR applied quite effectively in-camera (the computation is very simple, literally just subtracting the e- recorded at each photosite in the dark frame from the same photosite in the image). NR for high ISO is much more computationally intensive, and a computer will do that better than the on-board chipset. Also, post-processing NR for long exposures is not the same as NR for ISO noise. Unless you plan ahead and shoot a dark frame, you can't do long exposure NR in post. Many astrophotographers keep libraries of dark frames at various exposure times and temperature conditions and apply those in post, because it speeds up the image capture (i.e. you can just take a set of 30 s exposures abck to back, instead of the in-camera process of 30 s exposure followed by a 30 s dark frame).

I will say I haven't attempted astrophotography in almost 6-7 years (and even with that I shot with my medium format camera)... I guess I suppose having the the camera on bulb for a few minutes at a time if not longer with humidity and cold temperatures (situations which digital cameras struggle and have to work harder) then noise would be visible... I'm lucky enough to be in a dry climate with warm summer nights so I wouldn't have the same situation humidity wise as if I was sea level at lets say san fran or the midwest... (I had to do a shoot in chicago in which the humidity was so high (99%) my 30D at the time quit working until i got it in an air conditioned room to cool down and dry out.

Most of my long exposure stuff is for things like fireworks/lightning and high end architecture at twinight and usually (with digital) I dont get exposures longer than 30 seconds and typically noise at low iso is no problem for what I use it for. (film with reciprocity my long exposures get a heck of a lot longer to make up for it)

 

[neuroanatomist]

...I guess I suppose having the the camera on bulb for a few minutes at a time if not longer with humidity and cold temperatures (situations which digital cameras struggle and have to work harder) then noise would be visible... I'm lucky enough to be in a dry climate with warm summer nights...

Actually, cold is better. A major component of dark noise is thermal, and noise goes up with temperature. The image sensors on the cameras I use for microscopic imaging (where exposures in the 2-4 s range are needed to capture fluorescence) are Peltier-cooled to sub-zero temperatures to reduce dark noise.

 

[lady]

Whoo. It's gonna take a bit but I'm going to read through the rest of the responses and then reply to them.

I wasn't intending on being condescending and or rude, I was just seeking clarification about how you said you had it, tested it, and loved it and then "just got it" the other and are having buyers remorse. Do keep in mind regarding distortion... this lens is designed as a 17-40 on a full frame camera... 17mm on any camera will have some level of distortion... Same as the 17-55 in some regards on the 17 end, as well as lets say the tokina lens and the 16-35 I or II... The full frame will show the distortion more than crops, but it's still there.

Ah okay! It was just a misunderstanding then. My apologies. I agree that that there will always be some sort of distortion. However I have learned that photoshop has a feature built into CameraRAW that can fix most distortion problems. This will come in handy, though I do need to get a legitimate copy of photoshop since I cannot borrow my friend's forever. That's gonna be a little pricy.

Some lenses to keep in consideration that will have fast(er) speeds and keep distortion in check (20mm 2.8, 24mm 1.4, 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.4, they are all within the range of the 17-40, should keep distortion better in check, and 2.8 or faster) It's a great outdoors/travel/walk-around lens, but indoors, you will need to have a fast prime if you really want to shoot handhold. I do architecture (one of my specialties) and real estate photos... I shoot with the 10-20 and 17-40... But then again I shoot low apertures, tripod always, and they are static. Sometimes if I cant shoot tripod I still use low ISO but throw in off camera flash or strobe. Light will always be an issue indoors so either use a faster lens or use a flash (ideally either strobe or off camera flash). The 7D has a great commander feature if you can pick up some 580's or 430's... scatter them around the scene out of view from the camera and you never have to worry about lack of light.

I am in need of a good tripod. Somebody recommended manfrotto and I'm currently weighing my options.

Lighting is something I'll definitely need to invest in. Before getting external flash, though, I want to try to make the pictures as good as possible without flash. Force myself to practice, so to speak. You have some good suggestions here.

I never said it was foolish not getting the 17-55... I said I liked the 17-40 personally, however you need to really and fully know it's capabilities and limitations to get the most out of it.

I mixed you up with somebody else who said that to me, oops.

By going in a shoot fully educated on your gears limits will allow you to forward think so you know how to counter the limitations and push the limits to get awesome shots. Also remember the 17-40 can be used by the 7d and 5d whereas the 17-55 can only be used on crop cameras. Regarding your expectations of high ISO, check out the link i posted earlier... it'll give you a good idea of what this camera can do not only against itself but competitors.

Thanks

 

[awinphoto]

...I guess I suppose having the the camera on bulb for a few minutes at a time if not longer with humidity and cold temperatures (situations which digital cameras struggle and have to work harder) then noise would be visible... I'm lucky enough to be in a dry climate with warm summer nights...

Actually, cold is better. A major component of dark noise is thermal, and noise goes up with temperature. The image sensors on the cameras I use for microscopic imaging (where exposures in the 2-4 s range are needed to capture fluorescence) are Peltier-cooled to sub-zero temperatures to reduce dark noise.

I thought cold would be worse (batteries lose power, computers get sluggish, etc..) but i'll take your word for it because I have no reason why not to in this situation.

 

[awinphoto]

Whoo. It's gonna take a bit but I'm going to read through the rest of the responses and then reply to them.

I wasn't intending on being condescending and or rude, I was just seeking clarification about how you said you had it, tested it, and loved it and then "just got it" the other and are having buyers remorse. Do keep in mind regarding distortion... this lens is designed as a 17-40 on a full frame camera... 17mm on any camera will have some level of distortion... Same as the 17-55 in some regards on the 17 end, as well as lets say the tokina lens and the 16-35 I or II... The full frame will show the distortion more than crops, but it's still there.

Ah okay! It was just a misunderstanding then. My apologies. I agree that that there will always be some sort of distortion. However I have learned that photoshop has a feature built into CameraRAW that can fix most distortion problems. This will come in handy, though I do need to get a legitimate copy of photoshop since I cannot borrow my friend's forever. That's gonna be a little pricy.

Some lenses to keep in consideration that will have fast(er) speeds and keep distortion in check (20mm 2.8, 24mm 1.4, 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.4, they are all within the range of the 17-40, should keep distortion better in check, and 2.8 or faster) It's a great outdoors/travel/walk-around lens, but indoors, you will need to have a fast prime if you really want to shoot handhold. I do architecture (one of my specialties) and real estate photos... I shoot with the 10-20 and 17-40... But then again I shoot low apertures, tripod always, and they are static. Sometimes if I cant shoot tripod I still use low ISO but throw in off camera flash or strobe. Light will always be an issue indoors so either use a faster lens or use a flash (ideally either strobe or off camera flash). The 7D has a great commander feature if you can pick up some 580's or 430's... scatter them around the scene out of view from the camera and you never have to worry about lack of light.

I am in need of a good tripod. Somebody recommended manfrotto and I'm currently weighing my options.

Lighting is something I'll definitely need to invest in. Before getting external flash, though, I want to try to make the pictures as good as possible without flash. Force myself to practice, so to speak. You have some good suggestions here.

I never said it was foolish not getting the 17-55... I said I liked the 17-40 personally, however you need to really and fully know it's capabilities and limitations to get the most out of it.

I mixed you up with somebody else who said that to me, oops.

By going in a shoot fully educated on your gears limits will allow you to forward think so you know how to counter the limitations and push the limits to get awesome shots. Also remember the 17-40 can be used by the 7d and 5d whereas the 17-55 can only be used on crop cameras. Regarding your expectations of high ISO, check out the link i posted earlier... it'll give you a good idea of what this camera can do not only against itself but competitors.

Thanks

While at school, I used manfrottos tripods almost exclusively... We shot with 4x5's and medium formats so i needed heavy duty gear to handle the weight and strain of the cameras... I dont shoot much 4x5's any more but now my gear includes a Slik Pro 700 legs (i think thats the number) and manfrotto heads... The legs are aluminum and light weight compared to my old heavy duty manfrottos... I would love a carbon fiber manfrotto or better, but the slik is light weight yet extremely sturdy for me. Keep weight and load in mind... Weight because you have to haul this puppy with you on shoots and load because if the head AND legs aren't strong enough to hold secure your gear, you can not only lose shots but damage your gear. I had an old tripod fail on me wading in a river waiting for the lighting to be right before I shot the image... I barely caught the camera in time before it fell in the river.

Go to your local store and they should have a nice selection of tripods... feel them, hold them, and do your research. Regarding the photoshop... look on craigslist and look at your local colleges... A lot of them sell photoshop and or creative suite at student prices... At my local university in nevada, they have the entire creative suite for $299 student price. Fully legit copy. I knew a few college students there but see if your local college has software discounts at the student store. Also keep in mind adobe typically has a product cycle on a strong 18 month cycle... CS6 should be out sometime in the second/third quarter of 2012 so perhaps you will see CS5 at a discounted price. Lastly, i heard adobe now has a subscription option? You pay a monthly fee and you get to use their software... Doing that for i think for a few months pays for the entire purchase price but if you need to have it now and cant pony up $699, then that's a good option.

 

[awinphoto]

One last thing to consider with tripods is leg flexibility... Manfrotto on a lot of legs have a sliding locking horizontal support bar that connects to the legs to the center column. You will want to be able to control each leg individually.. Sometimes you may be on unstable grounds in which one leg is shooting out at the standard 30 degrees angle and another leg, given your location, maybe 50-60 degrees, etc.... If you dont have that control on your legs, it can hinder your photo shoot. You will know what i'm talking about as you play with the tripods... lastly on heads, see if you can get a nice sturdy ball head. Ball heads carry the weight better over the tripod where as standard pan/tilt heads are cheaper but instead of holding the weight directly on the body, you are carrying the weight on a few screws and metal/plastic as it hovers above the center column. It's just not as secure. Manfrotto has high quality heavy duty pan/tilts but you still can beat a nice ballhead.