You are right on with most all of your posts, but the difference in heat retention between white and black is insignificant when it comes to small objects. Case in point; as a MSF motorcycle safety instructor, many students claimed that white was the lessor of two evils with regards to how hot they get. According to all test reports by both helmet manufactures and independent studies, there was no difference in the heat factor. Only when you have a large area, like a tent, roof of home, etc. was there a difference.
Also, keep in mind the white lenses tend to show dirt or grime vs. the black.
Nikon does offer a grayish white lens and they command a higher price for some reason. Maybe cause it looks like you are shooting with a canon????

Just wondering if anyone else is having this dilemma. I'm now 80 yrs old and more or less retired from professional photography. Still do a little photography, mostly for stock. This includes people, landscape, and nature.
I'm taking a third cruise to Alaska this August and thinking about updating my camera. Currently I own a Canon 1D Mark iii and a 5D Mark ii. Very seldom use the 1D except as a backup camera.

Anyway, I'm trying to decide whether or not to buy the 5D Mark iii, the new 5D S R, or just keep what I have. I've read a lot of reviews and watched a lot of videos, but I'm going crazy trying to decide what to do.

If any of you out there are in my situation, what have you decided to do and why. Money wise the 5D Mark iii is $1400.00 less than the 5D Mark s r. I could afford the extra money, but is it worth it.

Here is a link that compares the two cameras: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gq3ISUHsfsQ

Thanks for any input.

I read this review.
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon-eos-5ds-sr

If you scroll down the specs are listed side by side. Now I have these questions in my mind.

What does 50.2MP vs 22.1MP really mean? It sounds amazing. Would I notice a clear difference in IQ?

The 5DS & 5DSR have a maximum ISO of 6400. The 5D III has a maximum ISO of 25,600. My 6D has a maximum ISO of 25,600. I have shot some decent shots at 6400. I have shot some crappy shots at 6400. I think it depends on the light you have when shooting at high ISO's. I think .. high ISO is not some kind of magic that lets you shoot in low light all the time. Here's my question. If the max ISO is 6400, does that mean that the acceptable ISO is much lower?

The other thing that is important to me is fps. I have been shooting alot of wildlife this past year. I have been frustrated a few times by the lag. The fps of the 5DIII is 6. The fps for the 6D is 4.5. Would I notice a difference? The 5DS & SR are only 5 fps.

All three of these cameras have a 61 point focus system 41 of which are cross type and 5 are double-cross type ... would this actually be more helpful than the fps in shooting bif?

BIF .. Wildlife is almost always seen at dusk and dawn. This means a high shutter speed in low light .. would the ISO really come into play here? Would that max of 6400 really limit me in these conditions? I never shoot over 6400 on my 6D because if it's that dark and I am forced to go higher, I know in my heart it's going to be the delete button for those shots when I get home.

Thanks in advance for any wisdom offered.