First, let me say to Jim Bob and Dave O: Thank you, Gentlemen! I have been following UHH for nearly two years and I periodically become exasperated by nasty back-biting exchanges. It was a pleasure to observe the two of you to take it from snappish to gentlemanly. Your example is beneficial to many here. Again, Thank You.

To Cat Marley's initial query regarding Nikon's D5 at 20 megapixels instead of chasing ever larger pixel counts. It is but a continuation of Nikon's philosophy of providing the best possible tool for the job at hand. Remember 2001 when they replaced the D1 with two cameras, the D1X at a nominal 6 MP and a burst rate of 3 fps for General Photography, AND the D1H with 2.74 Mp at 5 fps for sports? Over the years, and the generations of digital cameras, there wasn't always a clear delineation between Nikon's GP and Sports cameras, but, evidently, they kept it in mind. Since the introduction of the D800, the difference in purpose between it and the D4 was obvious. It now appears they intend to continue with dual tracks (more when you consider their many offerings aimed at casual shooters).

It looks like Nikon has really optimized this camera for the sports shooter. IF I were still shooting sports professionally, I would be ordering this camera.

The three features of special interest for sports photography are its improved focusing, high ISO capability, and 10 fps burst speed which should translate to a minuscule shutter lag.

As to it's not having a pop up flash, I've gone through a D100, D70, D200, and am now shooting a D800, and have yet to use the pop up flash. (Occasionally swore at it for popping up when I didn't want it!) As to the tilting screen, I don't see that as being terribly useful for sports (had a tilting/rotating screen on a Coolpix 5000 years ago and did not find it of much use, but the camera was useless because of shutter lag anyway).

Progress also takes the form of competition!

I too tend to reach for a longer lens! Back in my days of film and only prime lenses, my walk around lens was a 105 mm - set the hyperfocal distance and be ready for most anything. Today, I'm mostly zoom but still tend to go to the longer focal lengths. And I've never had the slightest desire to shoot a panorama; just don't visualize that way.

But, there are many scenes that are best shot with a wide angle lens. I often use something around 24 mm (full frame), but seldom go any wider when outdoors.

I can view a mountain from twelve miles away and see that it is beautiful. I can then drive onto that mountain, and it is still beautiful. And I can pick a leaf from a tree on that mountain and marvel at the veining, but there is no way that was visible from twelve miles away.

The same thing is true in a photograph. The information just isn't there!

Conversely, it is unfair to print an image at 20" x 30" and then expect there to be great detail when viewing it from three inches with a magnifier. The information just isn't there!

To the OP's original question, there is no practical limit, if the finished product is viewed from an appropriate distance.

Problem with these companies may just have been they were too big to get out of their own way! It's very tough when an industry is in the throws of change; corporations must continue to support old products even as they develop and market new ones. And the industry moves in new directions faster than corporations can adjust.

My dealings with Kodak were as a consumer (user of film and developing), supplier (sold them engineered construction), and corporate partner (owned and operated a "Q Lab). They were a good company to work with! But progress ran them (and me) over.

The phenomenon of exaggerating the size of the nose when shooting a face tight with a wide angle lens is a matter of geometry! If you compare the depth from the tip of the nose to the eye against the actual shooting distance in such a case, it becomes obvious, you have changed that ratio, and the nose appears more prominent. On the other hand, most photographer's prefer a longer lens for portraiture because of it's flattening effect!

I often shoot portraits with a 70-200, and up to now, I have been very happy with the results. And before this discussion, I have never heard any mention of "the ear effect". I will watch and see if I can discern it.

Here we are again, arguing about the advantages of various photographic technologies.

When I was just a boy, I was introduced to the joys of photography by the presentation of an Ansco box camera by an Uncle. I loved that thing and images I captured, but couldn't get my family to support my new found need for film and processing. When I finally was old enough to get a paper route, I got a folding/bellows camera. But in a few more years it was sports and girls, then college, job, family ... A snapshot here and there with another box camera until finally I went out and got myself a 35 mm rangefinder.

Loved those pictures, but soon felt constricted by just a single focal length and started lusting after a camera with interchangeable lenses. Lots of choices back then: Minolta, Pentax, Ricoh, Mamiya, Miranda, others; I soon narrowed the field to Nikon, Canon and Olympus. The small size and exquisite handling of the Olympus OMn's won out, and I was happy with them for the next decade and a half.

By then age was catching up and I saw real value in auto focus. That then meant Nikon or Canon, and Canon had just dumped their FD lens mount in favor of the new EF mount (earlier R and FL mounts long since abandoned) and I opted for the stability of Nikon's commitment to their 1959 F mount. Another decade plus, and we're in the digital age! Now progress in sensors and data handling requires frequent camera replacement.

Today the controversy is DSLR or mirrorless! Get rid of that clunky, loud, vibration inducing mirror and probably the shutter; simplify lens design; smaller and lighter! Advantage mirrorless! BUT, not if I have to scrap my considerable investment in glass, or lose any of the capabilities my system now affords me.

KEH Camera is the gold standard in the used photographic equipment business! That is the first place I look.

When selling in the retail market, the price you generally receive is about one-half the selling price for that item. Selling or buying direct via Craig's List, E-Bay, or setting up a kiosk on a corner, usually ends with a price somewhere between KEH's buy and sell numbers; but the buyer doesn't get the benefit of KEH's evaluating, cleaning, making minor repairs, and guaranty; and the seller loses the assurance of KEH's check and is left to real with any buyer dissatisfaction.

I've not sold any equipment (my wife wishes I would), but I'm very unlikely to buy used from anyone else.

Say what? If you really look, ears always look odd, but bigger? I don't think so. The phenomenon that makes noses look larger when photographed with a short lens is geometry; no such phenomenon with long lenses and any body parts.

This is the only kit lens I purchased since a 50 mm f/1.8 in the 70's. I used it extensively for a number of years (many actuations), until I went full frame. The quality is excellent for a kit lens; the images produced are very good; and it is durable! For anyone shooting a DX Nikon, I highly recommend this lens!

What's the big deal? The mirror in our SLR's (digital or otherwise) is simply there to allow the photographer to see and compose through the picture taking lens. A beautiful idea in it's time. A substantial upgrade from a view camera that we composed through a ground glass with a dark cloth over our heads, or a rangefinder with its inherent parallax and inability to change lenses.

But we now have electronic viewfinders. If they work and are reliable, then we can eliminate that clunky, vibration inducing mirror! (Maybe that pesky shutter too.) Makes lens design simpler - no more retrofocus wide angle lenses! The only mechanical parts still needed are the bayonet lens mounts and the lens focusing systems. I don't know about you, but I've had to repair/replace more cameras for the failure of the mechanical mirror/shutter systems, than any other problems - all other problems.

I'm a Nikon shooter, and expect to be one for my remaining years. Not through any super loyalty, but because of the substantial investment I have in compatible lenses et al. So when Nikon markets a mirrorless full frame camera and a adapter for my stable of lenses, I'll be very interested. I have a love affair with photography, not reflex mirrors.

When I first started getting serious about photography, I read everything I could find, and Ansel Adams soon had me convinced that I had to shoot black & white and pre-visualize the finished product. So I tried that for a while; got some pretty nice stuff, but found myself wishing they were in color.

Learned two things: 1) I don't see this colorful world in black and white, or shades of gray; and 2) I don't like it in b & W or shades of gray! As to pre-visualizing my color work, still lifes & scenics, yes, but a lot of my shooting is what you see is what you get sports and event work. Do I have a pretty damn good idea what I'm shooting will look like in a print? Yes, but I may have precious little opportunity to materially change it, and even less time (other than adjusting basic exposure values and picking an initial view point - which as often as not ends up losing me many photo opportunities, too).

I once belonged to a camera club with some pretty talented people. Jimmy and I, among others, later became wedding photographers. I remember when out shooting in the woods on a club outing, we would come upon an attractive scene. I would check it from several angles, maybe groom it a little, removing some errant weeds, get down low, compose, and make a photograph. Jimmy would then look at it, add a colored leaf here, an odd shaped rock there, and take the photo from an entirely different angle.

Yes, I pre-visualized, but Jimmy PRE-VISUALIZED!

If I'm not mistaken, the stabilization built into these lens is dependent upon the instructions from their OEM paired cameras. Therefor, there can be no stabilization with a different brand camera!

Using a monopod, and I have used one extensively shooting sports, and for supporting an RB 67 shooting weddings, I always have my hands on the camera and lens. I need the head to attach my system solidly to the monopod, but not rigidly! Unlike a tripod, where you may need a rigid connection with no creep or other movement, I want to be able to make constant adjustments to the lens alignment when using a monopod.

A similar thread some time back convinced me a tilt head makes more sense than a ballhead on a monopod. This thread led me to look at the options available at B&H. That query returned 80 options, but a large number were of other monopod related items. Pricing of tilt heads ranges from $35 to $460! The most complex/expensive has an elaborate arrangement to change the camera orientation from landscape to portrait.

My use of a monopod today is exclusively with telephoto lenses. They almost universally have a ring to allow the lens to rotate the camera orientation, so I don't need the head to do that. And I looked with interest at the Sirui L-205 used by MT Shooter (those metal disks and arcs marked in degrees remind me of the surveyor transits I used many decades ago), but I will be mounting long lenses exclusively. So all I need is a simple devise which tilts freely forward and back; will safely support my gear (10 pounds +/-, more is better); uses an Arca-Swiss quick release plate, or at least allows adding an Arca compatible clamp; is solidly made and easy to use! I do not need an elaborate device to measure the angle of tilt or a fluid head.

That leaves just seven tilt heads from B&H's list! Several of these strike me as much too fussy and way too expensive for such a simple device. Only two from Sunwayfoto ($35 & $75 - the difference being the inclusion of a quick release clamp) come in under $100.00.