in my original post i said:Originally Posted by espn
"i'm not going to say i will get more keepers with a good pro body, but i have personally encountered moments where i wished i had a higher fps to catch more frames of a funny look."
so i'm not sure what you thought i said, but there it is again. my point was, in a given 1 sec "moment", and with say a 3 fps camera, the photog will only be able to get 3 pictures to choose from, while if the same guy with the same subject and same "moment" had a 8fps camera, that 1 sec would have reaped 8 shots to pick from, and those 8 shots would have better white balance, better metering, possibly less noise and improved dark resolution EVEN WITH THE SAME GLASS.
so that's basically where i was coming from. i totally agree that if you point the camera at a turd and machine gun it, you will get nothing but turd. that is stating the painfully obvious.
your point of bringing in "control" as how a photog can control a camera is irrelevant. it was not a variable as stated in the original poster's question to the forum. whether or not the burst sequence is satisfactory to the photographer, is entirely up to the photographer. if they turn out lousy, then they are all thrown away. however, if they are good, and he could freeze that moment with 3 frames or 8 frames, i think anyone in their right mind would rather have 8 frames to pick from.