No, they don't hire me to shoot cliches at all. In fact, they hire me specifically because my pictures made at weddings often don't much look like "wedding pictures" (http://www.still-photo.net). They hire me to photograph what really happens. Otherwise, I'd never shoot weddings. I don't really like "wedding photography" per se. But if one approaches the subject purely as a subject (without preconceived ideas about what the pictures should look like), it can be quite rich.
The only pictures we usually shoot that are standards are 5 - 10 formal pictures of various groups. Although some clients don't even want those. There are a number of clients out there who really do want pictures made of their wedding, not "wedding pictures".
I would not use a camera like that Casio at a wedding. As I said earlier in this thread, I'm of the "pay attention and make one exposure per chosen picture" school. I never owned a motor drive and never wanted one. I may make several pictures in a short space of time but, if I do, each one is different and made at an intentional time. To be clear, I'm not saying that such is the rule for everyone. Rather, its just how I work.
Also, between Melissa and I, we often have 2000 + frames from a day's shoot. Editing those is already a huge task. Having multiple exposures for each intended picture would be a nightmare.
I'm not very interested in the Casio for myself. I'm interested in it for my readers because it may mark an interesting development in the history of cameras. And *someone* may put it to good use.
In another thread, you asked me how many exposures it took me to get a certain picture you were discussing. And I told you one, but it had to be the right one. Given your questions, I suspect we may approach photographing quite a bit differently. With a couple of commercial exceptions, I only press the shutter when I believe that the visual elements of the picture are coming together in a way that I like. And that's why I always need a first rate finder - I really need to see exactly what's happening just before I press the shutter. It's why I'll never be very happy with SLRs - the viewing DOF is too shallow for what I need to see. I'd rather learn the edges with an RF camera than look through an SLR lens at F/2.0.
Again, this is me. I'm not trying to suggest universals.