A short time ago I started a thread on the DSLR forum lamenting the lack of fps speed in the D50 and D80 (this was in part the frustration that led me recently to purchase a used D1H). Some in the thread argued that speed was not important, that a purist shoots sports with "one click" anyway and shouldn't use continuous shutter. Others argued that for some things, one click was best and for others, continuous. And if you shoot continuous, more fps increases the odds of success. I offer in evidence that continuous works for catching ball on bat, and that faster is better. D50 at 3 fps (twice now in 1-1/2 seasons). But with a much higher probability of success using a 5 fps or better camera (D1H once now in two games). Today: NIKON D50    ---    85mm    f/4.8    1/2000s    D50: 1/2000s f/4.8 at 85.0mm iso200 Yesterday: NIKON D1H    ---    105mm    f/2.8    1/400s    D1H: 1/400s f/2.8 at 105.0mm iso1250 or 1600 BTW, the Giants won today and cinched the Northern Division NECBL title. Playoffs start with home field advantage tomorrow night. I'm going to be in pig-heaven. Questions, comments, criticisms, and catcalls all welcome.