There's some weird logic going on in Mike's story. Canon makes fine cameras, but there are liars, damned liars and marketing departments. I've been carried around "consumer EOSs" around for twenty years, in rucksacks, photo bags, over my shoulder, and yes, I've occasionally dropped them or bumped into things that didn't give way, like stone walls and rocks. Still, I've never got to deal with a body that got broken, deformed or dysfunctional in the slightest way. (okay, *touch wood*) However, the size and weight of the 1D series really make it only practical to use in more sedate situations, tripods, in short: the studio. What the hell are these "pro" photographers doing there to justify these supposedly rugged 1D bodies? Playing American football? And could you imagine any wedding photographer moving about in a wedding party crowd brandishing a 1D?
I've only had a rebel break on me, everything else is better built.
1D for studio only? neah, I doubt that, it's not that heavy. The 1Ds was used a lot by landscape photographers (and those put their cameras through hell and back just to get that awesome shot of a volcano erupting for example) before the 5D came along, and the 1D is used for sports, and those cameras get the most abuse, so I can definitely see the need for better built quality on those.
What's wrong with using 1D for weddings? most wedding photographers use grips on their 5Ds anyhow, which makes the 5D comparable to the 1D both in size and weight. There's a guy on these forums (forgot his name) who used to shoot weddings with two medium format cameras.
I took exactly that decision about two months ago, and waited for the 6D to arrive. My previous main camera was a 450D, and I didn't want work with older technology and/or a secondhand camera (again) just for the sake of saving a relatively (!) small amount of money. I've been shooting with 6D for a couple of weeks (including one week's holiday in pretty dark weather), and I absolutely love it. That being said, I do travel, Street and architecture photography, and with the GPS, Wifi, stealth mode and relatively small weight, and the performance in almost no light, the camera seems to have been designed for me. I shoot often in dim little streets and publicly accessible interiors. In your case you may like the low-light performance for shooting portraits with natural light and day-and-night time-lapses. In some cases, being able to operate the camera from your iPhone might come in useful too. E.g. if you have to fuss a lot with your scene/model and the camera is at some distance. If you have to wait two or three months to save the extra money, I'd say that it's absolutely worth it.
How are you liking the 6D so far? are the outer focus points of any use in dim light conditions? I'm thinking of getting one to complement my 5DIII (and replace my 50D) for wedding work, but I'm not a fan of focus recompose.
I'm in love with my 6D, absolutely, but to be fair, my previous camera was a 450D. I do travel photography for my books and Street for fun, and in both situations the 6D looked like it was designed for me, with the much better performance in bad light or even darkness, and the GPS, the smaller weight etc. So far, I'm not disappointed.
As it happens, I tried the outer points inside a not too brightly lit conference hall, with a distracting light elsewhere in the frame - and it worked for me. It might still struggle in a badly lit street or room though, you'd really have to try yourself.