I'm a sports editor of a weekly newspaper and I use a 7D with 2.8 70-200 and 2.8 24-70 lenses.
Looking to upgrade. I'm torn between the R5 Mark II and R3. I would use it primarily for sports and general news. Family and landscape shots would be secondary uses.
High school fields and gyms are often low light (night football is that eternal challenge). Bigger lenses are likely out since I take extensive notes at games and can't hold a monopod at the same time. Heard the R3 is better in low-light with high-ISO, but I will crop on some images so I'm wondering if the 45mp of the Mark II would be better than the 24mp of the R3. And I hear the Mark II has an amazing autofocus system. Not sure if it's better than the R3.
In overall image quality, is the Mark II better since it has newer technology than the three-year-old R3?
Our full-time photographer uses a Nikon D6 (1DX Mark III equivalent) with a 300 lens. Pretty high-quality images. I considered the 1DX Mark III, but I'd rather upgrade to mirrorless
Regardless, what newsprint does to photos is pretty sad. Images look great in the online paper, though.
I appreciate any input. Thank you in advance.
