[davidmanze]

There are two things: the refresh rate of the LCD (like your computer screen, maybe 50 or 60 something else Hz, with LCD screens you don't notice the difference that much. And there is the rate of the video feed, comparable to movie videos (maybe 24 or 25 frames per second, or 30, or 60?).

I am sure the R5 performs exactly the same when you set the view finder to 60 Hz, also with BIF? Just a bit odd that it is not in the Nikon specs.

 Yeah right ....... what's the difference? .. light goes in the lens front and you gaze admiringly into the back top hole ....... and bingo you get pictures ...... I mean  ...... "how sweet is that"?  

 ........ as for refresh rate ...... I don't know about yours, but mine is around two pints an hour ...... not counting the froth ...... but then who's counting ......?   

..... notice how I didn't rise to the bait  ? ........

I don't get your post. Anyway, the difference is, you can watch a 24 frames per second on a 100 Hz refresh rate screen, and have a good time. But a 24 Hz screen would give you a flickering headache.

  My point BC and this applies to stills imaging  ....is ! ....
 ...... Refresh rate has little to do with a smoother flowing visual presentation in an EVF pe se  ....... or for viewing comfort pe se .......... while viewing in the EVF you will be highly unlikely notice the difference between 60 Hz and 120 HZ ........ it is not about that!!

It's primary concern is ........ seeing things as close as possible to real time in the EVF so that the subject appears in the image as close to where it was at the point of exposure when reviewing the image on screen ........ at 60 Hz you have a delay of zero to 1/60 sec ........ which means at certain instances you are behind real time by up to 1/60 ........ at 120 Hz the delay is zero-1/120 sec ....... so closer to real time, thus reducing the issues associated with tracking fast flying birds in terms of subject position in the frame ........ as well as having a lesser accumulation of errors that occurred with early Sonys where the bird got lost in the EVF after a few frames because of the delay ...... (latency)
  Sony wasn't even happy with 120 Hz and went for 240Hz (max) with their A1 ...... at 9.6 million dots ....... at great expense no doubt .......and to great effect .....
   Sport cameras need high read out speeds for reduced rolling shutter and fast refresh rates for remaining as close as possible to real time ...... we are not watching a film here ..... we are just looking at "one single photograph" whether it be on screen or a paper print ....... with the subject appearing as close as possible to where you saw it in the EVF at the point of exposure.
 
  I spent some time trying avoid any ambiguity in this post!

   dave's clichés