raschemmel:
I didn't suggest there was any incompatibility. I didn't see anything about 50hz there and I don't see that it matters either way.
The frequency at which the pulse is repeated is probably not critical anyway. I'm no expert in servo design but my understanding
is that the pulsewidth is the critical spec because that's what changes when the servo receives commands. When you watch the servo pulsewidth on a scope , you're seeing the same 1500uS pulse with either servo. The difference is that your seeing it 4 times more often with the faster digital servos, but if you receive only one bill every month do you have to pay any more if you receive 4 copies of the same bill (one a week) during that month ? (crude analogy , I admit) but my point is that the servo must obeay a command to set it's pulse width some value whether it receives the same command 50 times a second or 200 doesn't change the command. If I have this all wrong please tell me because I do want to know. I'm just saying that is my understanding of it as it stands at the moment.
No, your are correct. The "high update frequency" servos will work fine at either 50hz or at whatever higher updating rate they are rated for. They still obey the same universal 1000-2000 usec pulse width commands, with of course some amount of under and over range from that 'standard'. If there is any actual advantage of using a 'high frequency' servos depends on what the servo is doing for a living, as in what mass load it is moving. I would suspect that ESC modules might benefit in some cases if they had higher update frequency capabilities, but for a servo moving something mechanically I would think that the servo's internal motor and gear train would have to be upgraded to higher performance to actually benefit from the faster updating capabilities. But who knows if it's mostly marketing hype or useful in real work applications.