Originally posted by totsmuyco Things have really changed since my interest in photography started. In the 70's we were happy with 4-5 frames per second. I'm even glad to have k-3II's 8.3 frames per second. For me 12 frames per second is the max I'd need. However, the push in technology has exceeded what we were thinking of. I don't think I'll need 60 frames per second. But probably, the younger photographers would like this. What I've noticed these days are, people would shoot their cameras full auto like an MP5 or an M16 even in landscapes and other non-action shots. I don't know if they even care about composition. It's like "I'll shoot a thousand shots and take what I need. I'm sure there'll be something worth using."
The thing is, why? The logic of fast frame rates is to capture peak action, but there comes a point where the incremental differences between frames is so minute that it would be hard to decide which is best, so you not just have to sort through hundreds of near identical frames, you have to store them because you can't decide which you like best (unless, of course they're all out of focus, when you've just taken a big bite out of your shutter life for no better reason apart from learning to be more careful ). I can see possible subjects like humming birds where speed of movement of the subject might justify the number of frames to get the perfect shot, but there are very few. If, on the other hand you could dial in the fps to suit the subject (rather than just high or low), that might be interesting