I'm a sports editor of a weekly newspaper. Looking to upgrade from my Canon 7D.
Have 2.8 70-200 and 2.8 24-70 lenses. Likely won't ever go bigger because I take extensive notes during games since I'm writing the articles and can't hold a monopod at the same time.
I'm debating between the R3 and R5 Mark II.
I shoot mostly high school sports, so typically bad light. Night football is a big challenge, and many gyms are bad. Also shoot some general news and family stuff.
I understand R3 is better for sports in low light at high ISO.
I know the Mark II has more megapixels but I'm not sure what kind of difference that makes. I'll be cropping given the lenses I have. I know it has pre-shooting, too.
Also heard the R6 Mark II is good.
Ruled out the 1DX Mark III since mirrorless is the future, but I know that's an incredible machine.
Dragonfire wrote:
Welcome to FM I shot travel hockey this morning for the first time in 10 years and realized pre-capture is a feature I will need in my next body and for that reason alone I would suggest the R5 Mark II.
Interesting. I think of pre-capture as more useful for wildlife than sports. How/when would you use it for hockey?
For the OP, I've had the R3 for 2+ years and couldn't be happier, but I'm considering picking up the R5 Mark II for the high resolution (for cropping), precapture, and apparently it AF is as good or better than the R3.
I'd say you need to decide which is more important to you, higher resolution for cropping or the better low-light performance of the R3. Then you also need to take into account the value of the new features (e.g. pre-capture and the sports AF modes) for your shooting.
When I was choosing between the original R5 and the R3, I rented both of them for a week. I'll rent the R5 Mark II (and maybe the R1) before my next purchase. That's really the best way (IMO) to see which one is best for you.
Using both side by side, go with the R3. Realistically your not taking thousands of photos for a newsletter and the resolution debate is not really a factor. I have mixed feelings about pre-cap, after shooting 5 HS games for football with R5m2 I'm turning it off going forward since I don't think it warrants enough scenarios to be useful. Also you can't tell if an image was a pre-cap at least with football to determine the value. The R3 ergo is just far better with buttons and feel in hand. The R5m2 AF is better at acquiring smaller subjects (distant) and when it comes to tracking single subjects it's spot on, but mix in multiple subjects the AF gets hyper and will jump forward or backwards for no reason during sequences, eg. running back + multiple defenders. The point here is AF is super advanced and is taking time and practice to figure out vs R3. Given you may have other sports, a tc 1.4x + 70-200 is probably something I'd consider given LR can easily denoise iso 25600 images so easily. Even the R5m2 images denoised look great, so not a huge difference.
My sentiments are similar to adamx12m. The two bodies are really a toss up. The R3 has a better build and feel and is a very good body. The R5 II is also a very good body. You will need to add the grip to be on par with the R3 power and handling wise. Precapture is helpful really only in sports where you might be late, think tennis or baseball perhaps, and has in my opinion less application for other sports. It also produces many more frames to cull from and with 30 fps it will make a difference. For eyeglass wearers the eye control on either body may be a nonstarter. I don't know any sports shooters using eye control regularly. I find myself using the R5 more than my R3 because it seems to have a titche faster AF and I crop the heck out of my images. It also automatically switches to large jpeg when I am using the crop feature in camera so that I have a larger file when cropping in camera. You will be happy with either body. You mentioned the R6 II and I have that body too. It has less rolling shutter than its predecessor and the R5 I. It still has some rolling shutter nonetheless. If your budget can handle the other two I would go with one or the other.
Dragonfire wrote:
1- If you check your 7D you will find a microphone on the back of the camera where you can record 30 second messages associated with a photo, so there is no need for a note pad, and I am certain the R3 and R5 have retained that feature.
The R3 does, as does the R5. The R5 mk II retains the feature from its processor.
As I sit here reading this thread I am waiting for a high school varsity soccer game to start across the street. I work in a school this is part of my job, taking photos. I have purchased an R6mk1 and a R6mk2 for my students. I have an R3 that is my own. I use the R3 almost everyday. I use it for everything from grab-and-go snap shots in the hall way to night football, etc. It is by far the easiest, and most practical body I have ever used. Earlier today I set up the R6 bodies for my kids to shoot some home coming stuff. They are very good, but they are not as intuitive as the R3. The images from them are amazing, however the hand feel is not the same. Go with an R3 and a EF to RF adaptor. You will find it perfect for journalism and night time events.
I shot travel hockey this morning for the first time in 10 years and realized pre-capture is a feature I will need in my next body and for that reason alone I would suggest the R5 Mark II.