[deejjjaaaa]

Is that a new lens?

you can buy it (nikon) new - can you buy the pentax one new ? if not - compare used ones...

[brothereye]

Aren't you comparing apples to pears?

Not even the focal lenghts are the same...

And then, one of the reasons of the 24-70 Nikkor being so expensive is that it is regarded (together with the 14-24 f/2,8) as one of the best zoomlenses ever made. Even the Canon folks admit they don't have anything that comes near... As for the 16-50 Pentax, I think we won't argue if I say it's not anyway near one of the best zooms ever made by Pentax (there are a lot of them far superior.)

And while built quality of the 16-50 is very good, it's not anyway near the Nikkor.

So put one and one together...

That said: if I would compare the 16-50 with her Nikon cousin (the 17-55), I would say that the Pentax wins hands down. I used the Nikkor 17-55 on the S5, and all I can say is that it's rather soft (the Sigma 17-70 is optically better...)

"that it is regarded (together with the 14-24 f/2,8) as one of the best zoomlenses ever made".


From looking at these tests the Pentax lens appears to deliver better IQ than Nikon's 17-55 or 24-70 or Canon's 17-55. That's the only criteria I'm using. Not how complicated the lens is, or the size of the image circle it throws. Better image quality. Now granted, it's marginally better IQ, and any of these lenses would be great to have. But I can't see where the Nikon and Canon are, according to the conventional wisdom, "superior" or "best". And I guess that's my point. I'm not sure that conventional wisdom is as wise as it's purported to be, despite the fact that I was beginning to believe it.

As an aside, I'm not sure why people insist on not comparing apples and pears. I often compare apples to pears to oranges when buying produce. If the apples and oranges are rotten, I buy the pears. Why would only buy the least rotten apples? They're still rotten.

[Tom S.]

[QUOTE=brothereye;320017But I can't see where the Nikon and Canon are, according to the conventional wisdom, "superior" or "best". And I guess that's my point. I'm not sure that conventional wisdom is as wise as it's purported to be, despite the fact that I was beginning to believe it.
[/QUOTE]

Years ago, Nikon began giving their equipment away to professional photographers (including many who were using Pentax). Nike did the same thing with shoes, giving them to professional sports and college teams. It worked out to be the best thing either company ever did. Everyone thinking about buying a camera looks and sees that professionals are using Nikon, and thinks that must mean it's the best. Soon the 'legend' is born: if you're not using Nikon, you are either a moron or a fool. Canon figured this out and started the same ploy of giving their stuff to professional photographers, coupling it with an advertising blitz, and was very successful.

The thing is, you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time. People (us) found that Pentax offered an outstanding product for the money.

A lot of folks here hope that Hoya will lead Pentax back to fore front of the photographic world. I for one am not sure I want this. It would require a lot of money, which would undoubtedly drive the price of the product up, especially if supply doesn't keep up with demand.

[Wheatfield]

How are Nikon lenses superior to Pentax?

They aren't. Quite frankly, if they were, I would still be shooting with a Nikon.
As much as I bitch and moan about Pentax's quality control problems and the lack of a top drawer camera, their lenses are better.
Period.

[Duplo]

Well as a dual system user, i have a pretty balanced view on things.
Both make excellent lenses, good lenses and duds, all manufacturers do IMHO.

I prefer Pentax primes and Nikkor zooms.
The FA and DA limiteds are the strongest primes regardless of manufacturer IMHO.
The 14-24/2.8, 70-200/2.8VR and 200/2VR I feel the same about.
Same goes for some of the offerings in the Zeiss line up (i.e. 28/2).
I like a lot of stuff.

Statements like the one below without extensive personal use behind it, simply does not make a lot of sense to me.

On a side note, I just read through the two lens reviews, what do you base your assesment of the two lenses on? the Subjective opinion of popphoto? which by the way only shows the results at 50mm for both lenses and there the nikkor actually looks slightly ahead.

Okay, after all the Pentax financial position business, sky-falling nonsense, I have to confess, that I had decided not to invest anymore in Pentax and instead branch out and gradually switch to one of the two popular brands. I had managed to get about half of what I need saved towards a DA* 50-135, but figured well, I'll just take that money get started with a Nikon or a Canon. I always hear about how superior their gear is, and then I could gradually transition to the new system. Except when I started trying to pick something out, I'm convinced that the only thing superior about Canon or Nikon or the superiorly higher prices.

Tes of Pentax DA * 16-50 f2.8(about $700 US)

Test of Nikon 24-70 f2.8(about $1700 US)

What's important to note are the SQF tables. The Nikon fared only a little worse but it costs $1000 US more. How are Nikon lenses superior to Pentax?

Well as a dual system user, i have a pretty balanced view on things.
Both make excellent lenses, good lenses and duds, all manufacturers do IMHO.

I prefer Pentax primes and Nikkor zooms.
The FA and DA limiteds are the strongest primes regardless of manufacturer IMHO.
The 14-24/2.8, 70-200/2.8VR and 200/2VR I feel the same about.
Same goes for some of the offerings in the Zeiss line up (i.e. 28/2).
I like a lot of stuff.

Statements like the one below without extensive personal use behind it, simply does not make a lot of sense to me.

On a side note, I just read through the two lens reviews, what do you base your assesment of the two lenses on? the Subjective opinion of popphoto? which by the way only shows the results at 50mm for both lenses and there the nikkor actually looks slightly ahead.

Duplo,

It's crystal clear that all major manufacturers have at least a couple of gem lenses. Some even more and the wisest thing to do IMO is to gather as many as one can and use it close to full potential.
"Let it be cash!"

Radu

[Falcons]

I was one of the nay sayers recentlly and I am on a very tight budget for my hobby. I was getting nervous about investing my saved money into a Pentax Flash & the DA70mm and with what was being said about the Hoya report I was starting to think maybe I should join the herd and go the Big 2.

But as the OP states the gear on offer from the Big 2 is not all that superior - for my budget on camera bodies I have the choice of Nikon D40 ($595 Body only), canon 1000D ($789) or the Pentax K200D ($565)-

Personally I don't believe the D40 or the 1000D offer anything more (and perhaps even less) than my Pentax *istDS not to mention as the OP found out the high cost of Glass compared to Pentax.

So I really have no choice but to stay with Pentax (unless I accept the toy cameras from the big 2) and hope that Pentax can keep offering fine quality cameras that are reasonably priced for the features they offer.

So I have done my bit and ordered a 360 FGZ flash from Adorama (The prices for Flashes in OZ is ludicrous) and am just a few months away from my coveted DA70mm.

[brothereye]

Well as a dual system user, i have a pretty balanced view on things.
Both make excellent lenses, good lenses and duds, all manufacturers do IMHO.

I prefer Pentax primes and Nikkor zooms.
The FA and DA limiteds are the strongest primes regardless of manufacturer IMHO.
The 14-24/2.8, 70-200/2.8VR and 200/2VR I feel the same about.
Same goes for some of the offerings in the Zeiss line up (i.e. 28/2).
I like a lot of stuff.

Statements like the one below without extensive personal use behind it, simply does not make a lot of sense to me.

On a side note, I just read through the two lens reviews, what do you base your assesment of the two lenses on? the Subjective opinion of popphoto? which by the way only shows the results at 50mm for both lenses and there the nikkor actually looks slightly ahead.

If I compare the nikkor 24-70 as a full-frame lens, and the 16-50 as an APS-C lens, I have roughly comparable fields of view. The nikkor certainly doesn't seem to fair better than the Pentax for its "superiorness", especially not $1000 more.


True, I have not used the nikon lens in question, I would have to sell all of myequipment(4 bodies, 10 lenses and flash gear) to purchase it and a d300 to use it on. But I have used Canon EOS digital equipment, and I didn't find anything superior about it. I have also used Nikon 35mm equipment in the past, and couldn't find anything that set it apart from other manufacturers. It was okay, but it wasn't anything special. I just thought I was missing something. Having said that, I don't believe that the Nikon is a "dud" or "junk", I believe that it's an excellent lens, just not "superior".

For an even better comparison, examine the Pentax aps-c format 16-50against the nikon equivalent 17-55 or the Canon 17-55. Both cost more and don't appear to perform as well from the tests.

However, the main thrust of my complaint has been lost, which is, I doubt the "superiority" of Nikon or Canon, which is appears to be a generally accepted truth.

I agree that these are subjective tests by PopPhoto, but then photographs are subjective, aren't they. And I don't think that PopPhoto can be accused of being "anti" Nikon, or for that matter "anti" Canon.

As far as using test data, if I can't glean anything from tests, then I would just have to buy one of everything to see if it was any good, so there's no point in anyone reviewing anything or me reading any reviews.

[Duplo]

If I compare the nikkor 24-70 as a full-frame lens, and the 16-50 as an APS-C lens, I have roughly comparable fields of view. The nikkor certainly doesn't seem to fair better than the Pentax for its "superiorness", especially not $1000 more.

Agreed, but do you know on what camera the pophoto test was performed?
If not on a D3/D700 they are not comparable. that was my point.

True, I have not used the nikon lens in question, I would have to sell all of myequipment(4 bodies, 10 lenses and flash gear) to purchase it and a d300 to use it on. But I have used Canon EOS digital equipment, and I didn't find anything superior about it. I have also used Nikon 35mm equipment in the past, and couldn't find anything that set it apart from other manufacturers. It was okay, but it wasn't anything special. I just thought I was missing something. Having said that, I don't believe that the Nikon is a "dud" or "junk", I believe that it's an excellent lens, just not "superior".

Well putting it on a D300 would not make it an equivalent lens which was my point. I had the pleasure of trying it on for a weekend and indeed it is an excellent performer, how it compares to the DA*16-50, well I have no idea.
But the SLRgear review of the nikkor was indeed good and comments from actual users indeed proves it to be good, but IMHO, not quite up to the 14-24 in terms of performance.

For an even better comparison, examine the Pentax aps-c format 16-50against the nikon equivalent 17-55 or the Canon 17-55. Both cost more and don't appear to perform as well from the tests.

Dunno, I have not used them, but if it indeed are better performing acros the board, then it would make sense as it is a newer generation than the Nikkor.

However, the main thrust of my complaint has been lost, which is, I doubt the "superiority" of Nikon or Canon, which is appears to be a generally accepted truth.

So do I, my original point is that in terms of glass and IQ they all perform pretty darn good. I have preferences from system to system, as written in my original post.

I agree that these are subjective tests by PopPhoto, but then photographs are subjective, aren't they. And I don't think that PopPhoto can be accused of being "anti" Nikon, or for that matter "anti" Canon.

Nope, not what I meant... I meant that I have little confidence in their equipment tests in general. On nikkor lenses I prefer reviews by Bjørn Rørslett, the reviews doen by SLRgear are pretty accurate. but most importantly I like to shoot the lens and find out if it delivers when used as I intent to use it.

As far as using test data, if I can't glean anything from tests, then I would just have to buy one of everything to see if it was any good, so there's no point in anyone reviewing anything or me reading any reviews.

That was not my point, reviews are useful in terms of forming an initial opinion, but your choice of source and very conclusive wording was IMHO a little meaningless that was my point.
Reading the words of the review gives a quite different impression than your interpretation of their table.
I know when I addded my second system, I did a weekend worth of shooting with both the 1DsIII and D3, plus a number of lenses. then read lens reviews and asked questions, before making a decision on the pros and cons of the various options for my kind of shooting. IMHO that is the best way to go around it.

[brothereye]

Agreed, but do you know on what camera the pophoto test was performed?
If not on a D3/D700 they are not comparable. that was my point.

That is hardly MY point. According to the commonly accepted "truth", the 24-70is a Nikkor, made by Nikon and should knock the socks off a Pentax lens. It doesn't. That doesn't mean it isn't a great lens. I never said that it wasn't(although the Pentax did test a very slight tad better SQF wise).

(As an aside, I'm aware of the differences in field of view if the 24-70 were used on the D300 vs the D700. I only mention purchasing it with a D300 since the D300 would be the most expensive Nikon I could afford. A $3500 Nikon D700 might as well be a $35000 Nikon when it comes to my finances. I can afford neither.)

I had the pleasure of trying it on for a weekend and indeed it is an excellent performer,

I own the DA* 16-50, and it does fine too.

how it compares to the DA*16-50, well I have no idea

If you have no idea then why does it seem that you've concluded I'm wrong. And I'm only pointing out that the "FACT" that "EVERYONE KNOWS" about Nikon or Canon being "superior" doesn't appear to actually be valid. This is what I find so aggravating, that this widely accepted "FACT" doesn't appear to actually be a fact.

Dunno, I have not used them, but if it indeed are better performing acros the board, then it would make sense as it is a newer generation than the Nikkor.

Not sure what you mean here. The 17-55 f2.8 was introduced within the last year or so, the 24-70 came out this year, iirc, the 16-50 hit the market sometime last year, I think. Surely a year (or 18 months) doesn't equate to great gulfs of technological advancement in optics. And neither 17-55 performs any better, both appear slightly worse than the 16-50. Slightly being the operative word. But both are not slightly more expensive, instead they each cost a fair amount more.

So do I, my original point is that in terms of glass and IQ they all perform pretty darn good. I have preferences from system to system, as written in my original post.

Is this an agreement? Your post(s) seems to say you do agree, but that I'm also wrong, and you disagree. Which I have to admit, is confusing.

Nope, not what I meant... I meant that I have little confidence in their equipment tests in general. On nikkor lenses I prefer reviews by Bjørn Rørslett, the reviews doen by SLRgear are pretty accurate. but most importantly I like to shoot the lens and find out if it delivers when used as I intent to use it.

I picked popphoto especially since they are unlikely to be biased. There is enough of that to go around already. They also have much experience, and while I can't say they have the most sophisticated optics lab around, they should have been able to easily detect the extensive superiorness I've been hearing about. I don't have the luxury of renting(or borrowing). If I did rent a lens and it was good, I couldn't afford to buy it since I would have spent part of the money on renting it.

That was not my point, reviews are useful in terms of forming an initial opinion, but your choice of source and very conclusive wording was IMHO a little meaningless that was my point.
Reading the words of the review gives a quite different impression than your interpretation of their table.

I'm not certain what impression you believe I took away from the tables(or the text, which I also read). To clear that confusion, here's the impression I got: the Nikkor and Canon lenses appear to be excellent, the Pentax tests very slightly better here or there, but is generally of the same excellent quality. But that's really the point, all the lenses are similar enough in quality. Despite re-reading the text and re-examing the chart, I'm still not seeing "superior", except for price. Yet that "superior" myth is continually perpetuated.

And here's what I think about reviews, so you don't come to another conclusion about me that may not be correct. I don't think ANY review is the gospel.

-BUT-

I just don't have the money to try(or even buy) all the different equipment that's on the market. I sometimes get enough money saved up to buy something, and I have to spend it carefully. That's why I read reviews. I have to depend on them to guide my purchase.

And popphoto publishes tests and reviews on lots of equipment, and usually they're about right for me to digest, enough information, but not too much. I'm not an optical engineer, and I wouldn't get much out of a test report written for such an audience.(And likely wouldn't really care anyway, despite what this thread might look like.) And since I'm far from rich, I have to be careful where I spend what little discretionary income I have. No weekends with super spendy kit for me. My wife and the tax-man make sure of that.

[Duplo]

That is hardly MY point. According to the commonly accepted "truth", the 24-70is a Nikkor, made by Nikon and should knock the socks off a Pentax lens. It doesn't. That doesn't mean it isn't a great lens. I never said that it wasn't(although the Pentax did test a very slight tad better SQF wise).

I am not going an further into that... yes it has widely been acclaimed the top of the standard zooms. and by an pretty impressive list of reviewers and pros.
But you miss my point I am not claiming either of them to be the best and as I have little use for a standard zoom for my style of photography, I do not care much either.
My original comment was mainly on your conclusive wording and choice of source.

(As an aside, I'm aware of the differences in field of view if the 24-70 were used on the D300 vs the D700. I only mention purchasing it with a D300 since the D300 would be the most expensive Nikon I could afford. A $3500 Nikon D700 might as well be a $35000 Nikon when it comes to my finances. I can afford neither.)

Point taken, but just makes it an illogical comparison as originally stated.

I own the DA* 16-50, and it does fine too.

Agreed it is a fine lens and holds its own very well. you missed my point I think.

If you have no idea then why does it seem that you've concluded I'm wrong. And I'm only pointing out that the "FACT" that "EVERYONE KNOWS" about Nikon or Canon being "superior" doesn't appear to actually be valid. This is what I find so aggravating, that this widely accepted "FACT" doesn't appear to actually be a fact.

THe market leaders will always be considered better or somehow superior, even though it may not be the case. I think I stated that in my original post as well.
I personally do not think that the two tests you linked to proves that point or is enough to draw that conclusion as you did, that was what I aimed at.

Not sure what you mean here. The 17-55 f2.8 was introduced within the last year or so, the 24-70 came out this year, iirc, the 16-50 hit the market sometime last year, I think. Surely a year (or 18 months) doesn't equate to great gulfs of technological advancement in optics. And neither 17-55 performs any better, both appear slightly worse than the 16-50. Slightly being the operative word. But both are not slightly more expensive, instead they each cost a fair amount more.

The nikkor 17-55/2.8 I referred to was introduced in November 2003 (with the D2h IIRC) and in shops somewhere around spring 2004.

Is this an agreement? Your post(s) seems to say you do agree, but that I'm also wrong, and you disagree. Which I have to admit, is confusing.

I think most people will agree that most brands these days perform pretty well as does both of the lenses you mention.
My point was on the documentation that you draw the conclusion that one was better than the other.

I picked popphoto especially since they are unlikely to be biased. There is enough of that to go around already. They also have much experience, and while I can't say they have the most sophisticated optics lab around, they should have been able to easily detect the extensive superiorness I've been hearing about. I don't have the luxury of renting(or borrowing). If I did rent a lens and it was good, I couldn't afford to buy it since I would have spent part of the money on renting it.

Comeone, all reviewers has a bias, we all do to some extent.
I do not see popphoto as biased for or against anything specifically, I just see them as a popular consumer magasine and have limited trust in their reviews in general. I prefer reading reviews from people shooting what I do.

I'm not certain what impression you believe I took away from the tables(or the text, which I also read). To clear that confusion, here's the impression I got: the Nikkor and Canon lenses appear to be excellent, the Pentax tests very slightly better here or there, but is generally of the same excellent quality. But that's really the point, all the lenses are similar enough in quality. Despite re-reading the text and re-examing the chart, I'm still not seeing "superior", except for price. Yet that "superior" myth is continually perpetuated.

Well you read an awfull lot out of their reviews... I read it as their opinion.
And as said there are other opinions that I have more confidence in, but I would never conclude anything from one review alone.
I have never been a believer of myths, regardless of manufacturer. for you pentax is superior, fine by me... for me the brand getting me the reuslts I want are, and that is not the same manufacturer all the time.
However the test you linked to IMHO does very little to prove any myths at all, that was my point

And here's what I think about reviews, so you don't come to another conclusion about me that may not be correct. I don't think ANY review is the gospel.

-BUT-

I just don't have the money to try(or even buy) all the different equipment that's on the market. I sometimes get enough money saved up to buy something, and I have to spend it carefully. That's why I read reviews. I have to depend on them to guide my purchase.

And popphoto publishes tests and reviews on lots of equipment, and usually they're about right for me to digest, enough information, but not too much. I'm not an optical engineer, and I wouldn't get much out of a test report written for such an audience.(And likely wouldn't really care anyway, despite what this thread might look like.) And since I'm far from rich, I have to be careful where I spend what little discretionary income I have. No weekends with super spendy kit for me. My wife and the tax-man make sure of that.

What conclusions have I made about you?
Not one so far. I have simply stated that IMHO, you used an apples to oranges comparision to prove one myth is more correct than another and backed it up by inconclusive data.

Yours or mine financial situation has nothing to do with that and I most certainly did not make any conclusions or assumptions on you personally from this exchange. If you feel that way, then I do sincerely apologize.


I will let this rest, happy shooting.

[Faither]

Hey man, comparable glass costing a fraction of N&C may rate better but at the end of the day we can still only shoot 3fps. I'll never get that staff photog job for SI with such lousy equipment.

Obviously, my investment in Pentax gear was a bad one.

Hey man, comparable glass costing a fraction of N&C may rate better but at the end of the day we can still only shoot 3fps. I'll never get that staff photog job for SI with such lousy equipment.

Obviously, my investment in Pentax gear was a bad one.

Faither,

Yes today we cannot shoot at more than 3 fps but what about in 6 months from now, or a year? Bodies change but glass remains and I don't think the Mp race will continue as much as in the past. So if a lens performs optically @ 14,6 Mp will most likelly perform @ 15-16 Mp tops. Future sensors I believe will focus on low noise and better DR and so IQ will further enhance with the same glass.

Radu

[brothereye]

I am not going an further into that... yes it has widely been acclaimed the top of the standard zooms.

Again, because they like it doesn't mean it's "superior". And you complain about popphoto's opinions(which agreed with you about the Nikkor) regarding the quality of the Pentax lens, by pointing to other opinions. If popphoto is right about the Nikkor(they agree with your other sources), then can they not also be right about the Pentax?

and by an pretty impressive list of reviewers and pros.
But you miss my point I am not claiming either of them to be the best and as I have little use for a standard zoom for my style of photography,

I do not care much either.

You're continuing line of disagreement suggests other wise.

My original comment was mainly on your conclusive wording and choice of source.


Point taken, but just makes it an illogical comparison as originally stated.


Agreed it is a fine lens and holds its own very well. you missed my point I think.


THe market leaders will always be considered better or somehow superior, even though it may not be the case. I think I stated that in my original post as well.
I personally do not think that the two tests you linked to proves that point or is enough to draw that conclusion as you did, that was what I aimed at.


The nikkor 17-55/2.8 I referred to was introduced in November 2003 (with the D2h IIRC) and in shops somewhere around spring 2004.


I think most people will agree that most brands these days perform pretty well as does both of the lenses you mention.
My point was on the documentation that you draw the conclusion that one was better than the other.


Comeone, all reviewers has a bias, we all do to some extent.
I do not see popphoto as biased for or against anything specifically, I just see them as a popular consumer magasine and have limited trust in their reviews in general. I prefer reading reviews from people shooting what I do.


Well you read an awfull lot out of their reviews... I read it as their opinion.
And as said there are other opinions that I have more confidence in, but I would never conclude anything from one review alone.
I have never been a believer of myths, regardless of manufacturer. for you pentax is superior, fine by me... for me the brand getting me the reuslts I want are, and that is not the same manufacturer all the time.
However the test you linked to IMHO does very little to prove any myths at all, that was my point



What conclusions have I made about you?
Not one so far. I have simply stated that IMHO, you used an apples to oranges comparision to prove one myth is more correct than another and backed it up by inconclusive data.

I'm doubting the accepted myth. I'm not trying to prove any myth is more correct than any other. You complain about the opinions of popphoto as opinions. But you begin with the statement "widely been acclaimed the top of the standard zooms. and by an pretty impressive list of reviewers and pros." Aren't these also opinions? What makes them any more valid (or for that matter impressive)?
While working in a camera store in the early to mid '80s (so I could attend the university part time) I got to know a few local pros, and as far as technical knowledge went, most weren't very knowledgeable about equipment(although a few thought they were and a very few were REALLY knowledgeable). Most were comfortable working with the equipment with which they were accustomed, so that's what they stuck with. Some were quite creative, others weren't, although they could achieve a good image technically(exposure, focus were correct etc.). Fact is, a few of them confessed to using Nikon because that's what other pros used and they were used to it, it worked and what would they get by switching. They could already rent or borrow lenses, motors, etc.

Yours or mine financial situation has nothing to do with that and I most certainly did not make any conclusions or assumptions on you personally from this exchange. If you feel that way, then I do sincerely apologize.

Sure you did. For a start, you concluded I didn't know the difference in the fov between the 16-50 on an asp-c cam like the K10D, and the fov of the 24-70 on the d300(dx) vs the d700(fx), why else would you try to explain to me that they're different. I'm aware, just not wealthy. You've also made the point that I'm trying to prove the myth of Pentax's superiority(according to your earlier statement) with data that you question, but I'm not.

And like I said, the 24-70 and the 16-50 are similar enough(more apples and pears than apples and oranges) that the 24-70, at least according to the general notion, should be vastly better. I don't see any evidence for that.

The whole point of my argument is that the myths don't stand up. While the Pentax lens in this test came out(very very marginally) on better, the more important point is that it is not vastly inferior to the Nikon or Canon offerings.

And my financial position has a great deal to do with it. I don't have any illusions about how much money I can spend on what is ultimately a hobby. I have little to spend so I try to budget carefully. Mythology is no help with that. If you're wealthy(I don't know if you are or not), that's great, but it seems(from your posts) like my resources are more limited than yours. I'm not madly envious or upset about it, just realistic that my budget is more limited.

And you don't need to apologize, I don't offend that easily.

[Falcons]

Hey man, comparable glass costing a fraction of N&C may rate better but at the end of the day we can still only shoot 3fps. I'll never get that staff photog job for SI with such lousy equipment.

Obviously, my investment in Pentax gear was a bad one.

Maybe I am missing something as I don't understand what SI stands for, but I do know that if I needed a machine gun camera to get a job I would have bought a machine gun camera to get the job regardless of what I allready own.
To me it is like saying I'll never get a job as a Formula 1 race car driver with my crappy 4 cylinder hatchback - what a bad decision.

I'll risk all the flaming I will probably get; but seriously what kind of fool are you?

You bought a camera with only 3fps and are now claiming that it is holding you back from getting a job. Seriously you would have to be an absolute fool, just sell your gear cut your losses buy the gear you need for the job start earning your coin and get on with life.