Many people (and sometimes me) seem to measure the worthiness of a camera buy its features (or quantity of those). One of the features is the number of frames per second (FPS) the camera take. The higher the number, the better. But I want to ask us a question: Do we really need that high frames per second rate?
Do you have the answer to this question? If not than may be I can provide something that would give you an idea whether you need that thing or not. This is just my view on this subject, and applies to the ways I use the camera and the kind of photography I do. Though some applications could have parallels with your work.

[More:]

The Definition
For starters I want to start speaking the same language. And here is how I understand the meaning of Frames per Second Rate:
(1) (pronounced as separate letters) Short for frames per second (and typically written in lower case), a measure of how much information is used to store and display motion video. The term applies equally to film video and digital video. Each frame is a still image; displaying frames in quick succession creates the illusion of motion. The more frames per second (fps), the smoother the motion appears. Television in the U.S., for example, is based on the NTSC format, which displays 30 interlaced frames per second (60 fields per second). In general, the minimum fps needed to avoid jerky motion is about 30. Some computer video formats, such as AVI, provide only 15 frames per second.
(2) Capitalized, FPS is short for first-person shooter, a game genre. FPS games are ones that are in the first-person perspective where the gamer can only see the character's hands holding a weapon on the screen.
Source: Webopedia.com
The same definition applies to photography as well. However a digital camera in still mode produces a series of frames (photographs), not a video. Usually the FPS for still cameras could be up to 3 to 5 frames per second.

Pros and Cons
The advantages of FPS is obvious - you press the shutter and capture several frames instead of one. And then you can select at least one good frame and trash the others (or keep them for the sequence). You can rely on the camera to capture that one fleeting moment instead of your reflexes. And you even create a small "movie" as a GIF file - combining all those frames into a single image and making it roll. Sometimes you may use a series of two or three shots to reduce the shaking of the camera.
On the other hand the drawback could be easily overlooked. To give some kind of severities to these is a tough call. So I simply list them. For example, many people don't realize that SLR cameras use a moving mirror and when a shot is fired the mirror has to hide to let the camera make a clear shot. When FPS is used, it means that the mirror flaps like a flag in high wind. First it potentially could damage your camera (in the long run) and most importantly obstruct your view of the subject, so it will be hard for you to follow the subject with the camera. Another drawback is the storage, which is required to capture so many frames. This storage is not only the flash card, but the buffer as well. The first one you can swap with an empty one, when the buffer is full you have to wait till there is room for a new one. I have to mention the time you have to spend to go throw all those dupplicates and decide which one is better - time.
And one of the important drawbacks (in my view) is the lack of anticipation. Or better to say, the tendency to substitute anticipation with camera reflexes. That eventually could kill a big part of your creativity and make the fun a simple routine.

FPS in Sports
Sports is the most common field where FPS is used. The fast actions require quick responses and photographers cannot always rely on their reflexes, that's why they capture a series of shots - to have one or two really good ones and to show the sequence if necessary. The important moment here is to anticipate when the action starts to unfold and press the shutter (and hold it), so the full action is captured.

Wild Life
This is somewhat similar to sports. Some animals are very fast and you may have only a brief moment just to see it. Or you may need to catch the bird of prey when it plunges to catch the game. Such short time events rarely happen and you better capture them at the first attempt. Therefore the use of FPS if benefitial.

Weddings
Do I use FPS at weddings? Rarely. My camera has 8 frames per second rate and a big buffer, but I use FPS only for reducing hand shake of the camera in dim light. The second shot is usually sharper, if I am not that hasty to go to the next composition. Though I want to do more sequences of expressions on people faces.
Most of the time I rely on my own reflexes and the ability to anticipate the events. It makes you more in tune with the event and people around, which helps to produce better photographs.

Landscapes
Frankly, I don't remember ever using FPS in my nature/landscape work. And I don't see that much need in FPS there. Let me know, if there are some advantages of having this feature. Usually I use a tripod for my work.

Street Photography
This could be a mix of sport and wedding photography, where some events could benefit from FPS and dim light require steady hands (or second frame with FPS).

Conclusion
In conclusion I want to emphasize some of the things that I consider to be important for me. First use FPS moderately - remember that's your skills that matter, not the features of the camera. The camera is a tool. I'd recommend rely more on your own reflexes to anticipate the action and press the shutter button at the right moment. At least, that's what I am doing so far.
So, back to the original question: Do we really need that high frames per second rate? My answer would be - only if there is a requirement to take photographs of high speed actions (i.e. sports and wildlife). Otherwise 3 FPS is more than enough for your work. You are better with polishing your other photography skills.