[font color=\'#000000\']I'll throw my vote in for that! Actually I've had numerous discussions with all types of photographers about this issue. Here's my reasoning in favor of using the full benefit of 8 frames per second:
We would all like to think that the very best professionals wait for that perfect instant with all systems thoroughly checked, exposure correct, shutter speed correct, aperture correct and all it takes is our vast experience and superior observation skills to press the shutter at that "perfect" time and "bingo" - the perfect frame!
Sounds great, but here are a few caveats. During that tiny instant between the time we press the shutter release and the mirror slaps open and the image is exposed the subject blinks. How many here shoot birds? How many have shots with the eye obliterated by the membrane because the bird blinked? How about the autofocus missed? Happens all the time with every SLR and dSLR I have (that includes the Canon D30, 10D, 1D, 1DS, 1D Mark II and Kodak DCS-760 currently). Folks, no matter how perfect you "think" the autofocus is on your new (choose the camera) - let me tell you if it hasn't failed you yet, you just haven't been shooting enough because it "will happen."
Hold that shutter down when you "think" you have the prefect frame and out of eight or ten frames you will likely have two which are outstanding, one which is total crapola and the rest so-so.
A couple days ago I was shooting elk and moose under less than ideal conditions. I used my 1DS, 10D and a new Panasonic fixed lens, five megapixel digicam (FZ20). The percentage of totally in focus images? About 80 percent. I was using the finest "L" glass and ostensibliy some of the best dSLR bodies around. The autofocus was much quicker on the 1DS and 10D than on the Panasonic (it uses iterative contrast differentiation) but the percentage of totally in focus locks was about the same on all cameras.
I'd like to think that after doing this professionally for over 40 years I've got a pretty good handle on setting things up right, but one just can't beat the statistical odds with automated equipment. If I had the vision I had when I was 18 or 20 years old, I would be much more inclined to use manual focus, but instead I have 62 year old vision and it just doesn't serve me well enough to get consistent focus. Because of this I depend on autofocus and still I have to play the odds to insure success.
Yep, I'm not about to give up my "machine gun" techniques - trying to do it the other way just hasn't worked well for me.