Luxxeon, you bring up some really interesting and valid arguments, and I appreciate that.   I will say this... I think you make some amazing models, and this is not a criticism of anything you've done specifically, or your techniques.  In fact, that dreamcatcher model of yours is like a work of art, and many of your models could win first prize in a  cleanest wireframe contest I'm sure.  That being said, I stand by my statement.  Ngons are better than quads for planar topology, and using quads for most planar surfaces is a waste of resources.  Period.  And I'll back it up like this...

Do this test in your software and see what result you get...

Create two cylinders with 28 edges, or as many edges as you want as long as it's an even number so you can quad it up.  Cap one of the cylinders with ngons on both top and bottom ends.  Then cap the other one with quads.  Now, if your software permits, and I know 3dsmax can do this, examine how the ngon was triangulated behind the scenes automatically, and how the software decided to divide that ngon with hidden edges.  Compare that result to the edges and verts you have there on the quad cylinder.  The result speaks for itself.  The total edges on the cylinder with the ngons, and the vert count, will be less than the quad version.  They will look exactly the same in shaded view, but one is going to be lighter and more efficient than the other.  When you triangulate the ngon one, the edges will still be less overall, the mesh will be lighter, but yet the visual result exactly the same as the quad one.  If you open your render engine listener, and do a comparison render, the ngon cylinder should also render faster than the quad one.  The difference will be fractions of a second, but multiply that by say 1000, and it could begin to have an impact.

Luxxeon, if you still think quads are more efficient for planar surfaces, then I'll make my point another way... using your own software.  In 3dsmax, when you create a cylinder primitive of any number of sides, but do not specify any subdivision for the caps, the software will give you a cylinder with ngons at both ends automatically.  Why do you suppose this is?  Well, it's simple.  The software has decided, because you have not specified any subdivision parameters for the planar ends of the cylinder, that the easiest and most efficient way to cap those holes is with an NGON.  3dsmax, internally, has made the most cost effective, geometricly logical choice for you.  It didn't decide to quad it up, it simply plugged it with one big poly.  I think that about sums it up.