we were the first guys to go digital in Dog Show Photography and we did it from the "back end". We were very capable in PhotoShop (V 1.0 actually) and could bring up the black dogs and adjust for the white ones. At that time, if you got your prints from the film guys, your Rottie was a black blob and your Great Pyrenees was a blown out white thing in the middle of two people: the handler and the judge. We were good photographers. We were even better in post. Even managed to get a decent ring candid or two. Hard to believe that was 12 years ago. Today we compare 22 mpx vs 36 mpx and 6 fps vs 10 fps. In those days, it was 3.4 mpx and 3.5 fps and that was the entire state-of-the-art.
I understand your frustration that the 5D III isn't somehow better. More. Wait a few months. It will be. But isn't it really about whether or not we need to have the best, most current equipment to be good photographers. My photography isn't about my equipment as much as it is about my vision and my ability to create images that reflect that vision. Don't get me wrong: I'm as much of a techno-freak as the next guy. But I could go out tomorrow with a Leica M3 and create images I'd be proud of. My equipment has never gotten in the way of my creativity. And today's equipment is better than ever. We should appreciate what we have and spend more time taking pictures than wondering whether or not somebody has a better camera/lens than we have