I should of course add some riders to that question. 1. I currently shoot with a D1H 2. I don't print bigger than A4 (11"x 7.3" to be precise) and, as my printer is a Canon i950 which like most ink jet printers shows no real improvement in quality if sent files over 200dpi, I print at 200dpi. 3. I don't want to print bigger than A4 - I have a loft full of mounted 20*16 and 15*12 from my film days which have not seen the light of day in 15 years or more, I don't want to add to them, the ceiling might fall down . 4. My preferred method of showing/viewing pictures these days is the web. 5. I have just read a review of the F6 (same exposure and focus hardware is D2Hs/D2X) which comments that focus speed is no faster than the F5 (same exposure and focus hardware as D1H) - BTW the review concludes if you have a F100 a good upgrade, if you have an F5 don't bother. 6. A D2X is just to expensive: £3500 plus another £1000 on a new computer (my current one just about stops when fed a sample D2X NEF I downloaded but is quite fast on downloaded D2H NEF) plus more money for compact flash cards, spare batteries and other odds and ends say an investment of £5000 - this will be much better spent on a (luxury) trip to India to photograph Tigers etc. The question then - what advantage has the D2Hs got over the D1H in practical terms. I had thought the D2Hs would get my 80-400 focusing a bit quicker but the F6 review implies it would not. Are the extra 1600 pixels going to be that noticeable on the web and in A4 prints? What are the thoughts of those of you who have used both cameras?