A quarter century ago, give or take, I gave up a camera system I loved, to get the auto-focusing available on another system. That auto focusing system has been continuously improved, and now, this many years later, particularly without the aide of a focusing screen, there is no way my eyesight can compete with auto-focus for dynamic subject matter!

This is very good advice. However, having a relatively powerful speed light, I find directing the light above and behind me to illuminate a good chunk of ceiling which becomes my light source, providing a broad uniform light on my subject, works extremely well. If you use a wall and ceiling you can get a very nice, soft, directional light.

This is all dependent upon the distance to ceilings and walls, the power of your flash, ambient light, and the sensitivity(ISO)setting on the camera. A little testing can tell you a lot. (I've used this method with battery powered, 400 watt second, bracket mounted strobes in some pretty cavernous rooms.)

Back in the sixties & seventies, I worked in downtown Chicago, "the Loop". There were dozens of camera stores, one on nearly every block. I just did a google search and came up with only three, on Wabash Avenue, in all the Loop. (One, Central Camera has been there for over a century, the others I do not recognize.)

Outside of the loop, in the third largest city in America, there are only a few listed camera stores, including listings for Best Buy and Walgreens (which I believe only has photo processing services). One of the few is Calumet Camera, venerable Calumet Camera, but, hey, they are now owned by B&H!

No, we are not down to just three retailers, but we are very close to it!

Back when I used to haunt all those Loop camera stores, there was an ethic we tried to live with, to not check out the camera at the local store, only to order it from one of the national retailers like B&H. I tried to live up to that ideal, though I knew others who didn't. And that may have contributed to the demise of the local camera store, but I expect it was (is) market forces beyond our collective control.

The point and shoot market, plus film processing and accessories was the heart and sole of the small camera shop. Digital eliminated film, big box stores stole much of the point and shoot market before camera phones destroyed it. And now we have to drive long distances to find, if we can find, a "real" camera store.

And the shake out caused by new technologies is still underway. I love my cameras; medium format, SLR's, DSLR's (DX & FX), and point and shoot (film and digital). But I am very much afraid that phone cameras may one day be the only choice we have. But as much as I dread such a time the remaining camera shops dread it more! Pentax? It'll be a while but along with Olympus, Nikon, Canon, et al, they may just follow Kodak into oblivion.

Auto and horse racing are outside my purview, but I shot an awful lot of baseball - some college, but mostly high school. I never attempted the continuum of shots from pitchers hand to catcher you describe; there would have been no market for that sequence. And as I was shooting from on the field of play, the shot of the batter and ball and pitcher shown above would have been entirely too dangerous.

But I did try to get shots of the batter swinging with the ball in the frame. With film it wasn't practical due to a film budget, and with my first DSLR's, the D100 & D70, the lag time was just too great, and the ball was almost always past. But when I got the much quicker D200, it became practical! However, timing is everything, I had to frame the hitter and push the shutter release at the first indication of motion by the batter. Unfortunately, more often than not, this was just the batter relaxing as he decided to take the pitch - got lots and lots of shots of the ball going by with the bat motionless on the hitters shoulder.

But perseverance and practice and occasional luck eventually paid off and I got lots of good shots of the batter swinging at the ball. And, yes, once I did get that magic image of the instant when the ball meets the bat, but it looked fake, as if the ball had been glued to the bat!

I'm retired now, but I think I'll get me a D500 and get out to a ball field to see if that doesn't improve my success rate.

I would echo the choice of a Sirui ballhead. I purchased one recently and was very happy with a smooth, well-built head.

Manfroto (Bogen) does produce several low cost heads which would do the job for you, but Manfroto heads come with one of several proprietary quick release systems (or you must add your own), none of which are compatible with the Arca-Swiss system which has become the industry standard.

The usual determination for a "normal lens" focal length is the diagonal of of the format dimensions. For a 35 mm film or "full frame" camera this works out to be 43 mm, but most SLR's initially were provided with 50 mm lens which allowed for the mirror to flip up out of the way. (Wider angle lenses are "retrofocus" to provide the desired angle of view while providing that mirror clearance.) Over the years 50 mm became the defacto "normal lens" for 35 mm film. With today's "crop" sensors, that diagonal is around 28 mm, while most photographers consider 35 mm the defacto norm. But, in fact, it depends on the photographer, and what feels right to them. (I like something around 90 - 105 mm on full frame, but that's the way I "see" things.)

Greg14: It's not the tripods, not even the heads, it is the compatibility of the quick release systems! The foot attached to the lens collar is NOT intended to fit an Arca-Swiss (or any other) quick release mechanism. A separate (compatible) quick release plate screwed to the foot, is required!

Used without a Quick Release System, the foot is simply screwed directly to the flat top of the tripod head with the screw protruding from that top. If the tripod head incorporates a quick release base or "clamp", a compatible plate must be screwed to the lens collar foot. There are many different systems available (I have bought four different systems, all incompatible with each other). Most of us opt for an "Arca-Swiss" compatible system, but there are other systems that work if you are careful stay in that specific system!

(Note: there are manufacturers that purvey more than one system not compatible with each other.)

Back in the days when you could not buy a "full frame" digital camera from Nikon even though many photographers were clamoring for one, I read that Nikon claimed there was a problem with the way the light struck the sensor's photo sites on the outer areas of the sensor. According to the article, Nikon was saying that the light from existing lenses would strike these points at too oblique an angle while the nature of the sensors required a straight on light entry into the sites.

I read this quite some time back and cannot recollect where, and so cannot cite a source. At the time I was inclined to believe that it might be marketing BS, as it was known that the difficulties and costs of manufacturing these sensors increased logarithmically with size. However, it follows that if this information was not marketing BS, then newer lens designs would compensate, and eventually full frame digital cameras would become available. On the other hand, sensor design might also be adjusted to negate the problem.

Because so many photographers are happy today with their vintage film era lenses on the current crop of sensors, I tend to accept the BS theory. Or maybe they've modified the sensors!

I agree wholeheartedly with GENorkus. I am very zealous about the "care and feeding" of my image files. In no circumstance do I broadcast files for others to "play" with and re-save multiple times! I might send Jpeg's to those very close to me so they can put them on their social media pages, or make prints, but there is no reason for them to make changes and re-save them repetitively!

As to your FLIF format, I reviewed the nearly 250 formats on the site dpullum linked to, and FLIF wasn't there. Even if it's as good as the FLIF website claims, it is unlikely to become widely used, and your photo's could be archived in an abandoned format. Stick with Jpeg; just keep your final version safe in storage.

I watch a program on PBS where a man goes around the country interviewing artisans. They vary from quilt makers to woodworkers to glass blowers, to ... They all display a good deal of creativity. At the end of each program the interviewee is asked whether they think of themselves as an artist or a craftsman; invariably the reply is a combination, when they are recreating something they have done many times before, it is craftsmanship, but when they are creating something new and different, it is more art.

My photography is like that. I have a degree of proficiency and can take a pretty good portrait with little effort. That is craftsmanship! But I am an artist when I am able to tease out a special smile, or to illustrate my subjects personality in a new or striking manner.

But when a person with their first DSLR tries portraiture and through following a U-Tube video and experimentation come up with a good portrait of their neighbor, a portrait just like thousands I have made, are they not doing art? Then, a thousand portraits later, they may be a craftsman.

But maybe, after all, art is just a collaboration between artist and viewer?

In any event, I am sure that someone who declares that it isn't art because the creator didn't use oil paints on canvas, or didn't spend hours reworking the image in PhotoShop, is giving us - what did Rongnongno call it ... crap!

A news story stated that the first case of a person being infected in the US has occurred, but it was spread through sexual intercourse, not a mosquito bite! (Partner had contracted the disease in Columbia, I believe.)

Kuzano wrote, "Five or so years ago, I quit shooting RAW, and quit using Photoshop." And much more.

To which, BurkPhoto responded, "... There is a LOT more power to JPEG capture than the "rock stars of raw" care to admit. I see raw and JPEG as equals, each suited to a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT set of workflow needs.

"You can hedge your bets, too, by saving both file types. Try to pre-process (set menu settings and exposure and white balance carefully) for a great, "slide like" JPEG. That will give you highly optimizable raw files for your keepers, should you want/need to post-process."

I learned photography shooting slides, where the only PP was remounting the slides to crop unwanted areas from the fringes. (Gepe, anyone?) Later, after being downsized from a 30+ year career, I owned a studio and lab (lost my shirt), worked in a camera store and made a living as an "event photographer" (Weddings, Proms, Bar/Bat Mitzvahs, and especially sporting events). For the Weddings, etc., most of my work was with film and I relied upon Igor (what else could the lab guy be named) and his compatriots explicitly for the extensive post processing that was needed. So too for the sports shot on film, but once I switched this work to digital, I did some PP work. (To be honest, most of my editing consisted of choosing those that stayed in and eliminating the rest.)

But I did some post processing, mostly cropping, and adjusting exposure, contrast, et al. When we moved back to the Chicago area, I unofficially retired, only doing family photos, grandchildren at play, and a little "pro bono" work.

During this time, I had gotten into Photoshop, but not in a major way, also using PaintShop Pro, which I preferred in some instances. And then I had a problem with moving PhotoShop to a new computer, which essentially made my initial purchase, and the upgrade I had added, lost money. I am now one of those who has determined that Adobe has gotten the last dime I am willing to donate to them. Besides, Photoshop is really a program for digital illustrators, and it is often over kill for photographers! Not that you can't do an outstanding job in PhotoShop, photographers are doing great work in PhotoShop! It's just that much of PhotoShop has been developed to support the publishing industry, and photographers have been buffaloed into supporting an overblown system. (Maybe this is the time I should say, "In my opinion".)

My lack of enthusiasm for PhotoShop aside, I spent several years after "retiring" allowing my photographic skills to "lie fallow". But about two years ago, I began to get excited about my craft once again, I found UHH on line, I upgraded my D200 to a D800, and got the latest version of PSP, plus ACDSee. (I still mostly edit by selecting the keepers and deleting the others - ACDSee has the interface I find best suited for this).

With the dual card slots of the D800, I took the advice of BurkPhoto and others, and started saving both Jpeg's and Raw images. A few images are suitable for sharing Straight Out of the Camera (SOOC), but most need a little processing - exposure, contrast, cropping, minor sharpening - that can be done on the Jpeg. If I'm making a large print, or it's an important photo, or an imperfect "one of", I go to the NEF (Nikon for raw) copy and work on it in PSP! But the bottom line is, unlike LarryN who wrote that post processing is "... very enjoyable...", I find it a drudge, so I try to do as little of my photography in the computer as possible!

Not with standing the accuracy of "Fat Old Curmudgeons"!

Quoting burkphoto: "The truth is, most of the gear on the market is better than most photographers' abilities to use it."

Very true! The photograph is, after all, a compromise, balancing the ideal in terms of resolution, dynamic range, et al; versus the practical limits both of our equipment and the very laws of physics. And the biggest limitation usually lies within the photographer.

Quoting bkellyusa: "Also, if [Canikon] put out a mirrorless camera how would they sell another DSLR. Can you imagine a salesman encouraging you to spend another $1,500.00 just so you can have a camera with some additional weight and a useless mirror. That would be the very last nail in the coffin for DSLR."

I do not think "Canikon" is holding back in fear that a move into mirrorless would suddenly obsolete all DSLR's. I am sure Canikon could continue to enjoy a market for the plethora of lenses, flashes and accessories now produced, if mirrorless cameras utilizing "DX" and "FF" sensors were added to the product mix. In the end I don't believe the marketing wars will revolve around the Optic View Finder versus the Electronic View Finder, but rather the sensor size. The salesman will encourage you to spend your money either way.

And yes size is important. The size of the image recording media on the one hand; the size and weight of the camera package on the other. Does the photograph made by a 4" x 5" view camera equal that created in an 8" x 10"? Technically, by the numbers, no. Is the size and weight important? You would know it is if you carried that RB I used to shoot weddings with, around for a day!

I have never been bothered by the size and weight of my Canikon shooting sports, often carrying two bodies one mounted with a a large fast telephoto, as I tread up and down the sidelines for hours. But I was when toting it in addition to my clothes, tent, food for a week, on those rare occasions when I was able to get away to the wilderness.

The EVF is a definite advancement, and may, at some point, dominate the market. Nonetheless, today I am quite comfortable with my full frame DSLR shooting family events or grandchildren's sports; it fits my hand, it feels right. But it is too bulky when I travel by air, and I yearn for a smaller, lighter package that will afford me a variety of lenses and great images. My current "fixed income" allows me neither the luxury of a whole new photographic system, nor much air travel.