EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Rebel T4i vs 5D Mark III - $850 vs $3499 - Is it really worth 4 times the price?« on: June 11, 2012, 09:15:09 PM »
When he still used Canons, Ole Liodden once wrote on his blog about people using different cameras on some of his Arctic/Antarctic trips. He didn't mention Rebels, but he did say that he'd had a number of clients using 40D's and 5D MkII's, that had failed due to the weather conditions, yet the 7D (and of course the 1D's) kept on working. The build quality and sealing of the 5D MkIII is supposed to be the same as the 7D, so if you are in less than prime weather conditions, then it could be the cost of getting the shot or not. If you're a hobbyist, then it may not matter, unless you're on the trip of a lifetime, but you can imagine the cost to a pro who is trying to earn a living. Reputations are easily lost and difficult to regain. So basically, whether it is worth four times the cost is as much down to your circumstances as the needs for the type of photography.
I mostly use my camera for travel photography. The most extreme climate I've taken it through was a glacier hike in Argentina where it was freezing cold, and lots of drizzle and light rain. It held up pretty well for a camera that's not weather-sealed or anything. Other than that though, I use it for studio portraits, weddings or in moderate outdoor climates. Nothing too extreme.
I am contemplating a trip to a few African countries by the end of the year, but weather-sealing is not a major concern for me. I've missed shots before, but not so much because of climate as much as autofocus and ISO limitations. That's something for me to think about. Thanks for your thoughts!