well, i was talking about lenses on the market, or owned by people i kow, it was a general consideration regarding legendary and accesible
primes. i previously stated that i consider nikon superior in the sub tele zone because of the 14-24, 24-70 and 85 1.4, wich seem to be better than the canon counterparts (if there are any, the 14-24 is starting to become a sort of a habit amongst canon users too
), and the 85 1.4 is inexistent), and completely lack in current pentax offerings. now i remember that the 70-200 VR seems to be a tad better than the canon counterpart, or ar the same level to say the least, so you can stay in touch in the tele zone, somewhat. sure, you also have a 300 2.8, 400 2.8, 600 f/4, but it seems that they still have to prove themselves somewhat.
i shoot a D80 because i did not have the money for a D3, i had to buy good lenses and flash. i am not the greatest wedding photographer, i am only shooting for less than a year in this area, i have plenty of time to perfect my aesthetics. and yes, you can get sued if a wedding goes wrong, with of without the D3.
that seagull pic is so blurry and the color is not great at all, it's not even worth posting. also, tallent has nothing to do with the camera you shoot, as Henry Cartier-Bresson once said:
"They . . . asked me:
"'How do you make your pictures?' I was puzzled . . .
"I said, 'I don't know, it's not important.' -
but there are times and applications that require the max you can get. i see alot of mixed opinions, both from noobies and photographers. i have no interest or real gain in replying to this topic, i have proven myself without calling anyone names. grow up.