R5 Mark II or R3 for sports and news?

[Sportseditor123]

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.

[p4pictures]

The EOS R3 is the camera designed for news and sports. Even though it is a few years older, it still is exceptionally good and great in low light. It won't be bothered by whatever the weather might throw at you while you're shooting. 

One thing you might find is that your lenses have less reach than when you used the EOS 7D. Since the EOS 7D has an APS-C sized sensor, then your lenses have a narrower angle of view than they will on the full-frame R3 or R5 Mark II. In this respect the EOS R5 Mark II can shoot in crop mode to give the same angle of view and reach as your EOS 7D does with your lenses, and it will still produce 22MP images. EOS R3 will only be around 9MP. 

[jeffn54]

IMO: You're making a multi-generational leap from the 7D to any of the mirrorless cameras. For its time, it was an exceptional camera. Regarding the R5II and the R3, I have many years of use of the R3. My primary use is Ballroom dance photography. Just think about really bad lighting; that is always changing for artistic reasons. Note the rather large range of artistic expression. I like using a flash (EL-1, or EL-5) when the competition allows supplemental lighting. That is a -1/3 stop mixed with random ambient. The EL-1 and EL-5 work in HSS with The R5, R5II, and R3. I also spent years working for ABC, gathering news. Even with a lower pixel count, I find I prefer almost every aspect of a photo with the R3 over the R5,  There is some intrinsic quality of the R3 in both prints and final output that grabs your soul (I have not been able to quantity what this is. This same intrinsic quality was in the 1DxII and 1DxIII).

If you want longer reach I would highly suggest a teleconverter. The sensor and tracking capabilities are much better in the R5, R5II, and R3 than in the R7. Using DPP I could see that even though the camera "thought" a fast-moving object was the focus point (the red square) it was not. I spent a lot of time with various modes on the R7 for object capture and hysteresis, DPP will show you what the camera "thought" did and what the camera did. The R3 is the best of its generation. The R5II is very good and IMO radically different in its capabilities with the AI moving into the camera (It will take me a long time to wrap my mind around the R5II capabilities). In summary: move to the EOS-R series with their 2nd and 3rd generation, get very good fast lenses, a teleconverter, and stay away from R7 you should be very happy. This is my first longer reply. Any feedback would be appreciated.

[Sportseditor123]

Thank you! What I learned about teleconverters, aside from losing some light, is that while the EOS lenses can work with mirrorless cameras with the adapter, teleconverters do not work with that setup. I'd need to get RF glass with an RF teleconverter. That might be years away given pricing.

This might sound ignorant, but would a 1DX Mark III be just as good as an R3 for sports? I could use a teleconverter with that.

[Sportseditor123]

Thanks, Whiz!

I rented an R5 several months ago for a weekend and noticed the narrower angle of view right away. It honestly felt like the 7D had better zoom since it filled the frame, but I didn't need to stand as far away to capture closer subjects with the R5.

Thank you so much! That's the first detail I've heard on the difference in MP when cropping! Do you have any idea if there's a large quality difference in print between 22MP and 9MP?

[p4pictures]

You can definitely use EF lenses from a DSLR with an EF extender on the mount adapter. I regularly use an EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM with EF 1.4x Extender Mk3 on my R6, R10 and R6 Mark II. One of the reasons for me not getting the RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM is that it cannot work with an extender at all. 

I also use EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM and EF 135mm f/2L USM with the extender and mount adapter on my cameras. 

[zakslm]

Sportseditor123,

You are definately getting good advice from the community.  

It's timely that Jared Polin posted a video comparing the R5, R5 MkII and R3 on Youtube recently and you may find it interesting and/or informative.  In any case, Jared is entertaining, irreverent and informative.

https://youtu.be/IBnHyvqbdaI?feature=shared

Good luck!

LZ

[Sportseditor123]

I was told you can't use extenders with the adapter and mirrorless cameras.

Canon support via chat just said the extenders aren't supported in that case. They may be used but they said you'd lose a lot of functionality. What's your experience? How many stops do you lose?

[Sportseditor123]

Thank you. This has been a frustrating process. I've been researching for months with credible information sorely lacking.

I've followed Jared for a while. He's good on specs but I can figure out that 45MP is greater than 24MP and give a checkmark myself. What the difference is when you print photos with those two levels, given the rest of the settings are the same, is what I'm after.

If the R3 is better in low light, then I want to see examples of that compared to the R5 Mark II. How much better? What's the real difference in print and online?

How different are the autofocus systems? Are they the same or are the differences hard to notice?

His in-the-field stuff is OK but he shot touch football in broad daylight and hoops and volleyball practices in a well-lit gym. Examples of shots at Phillies games also don't apply to my situation.

I'm interested in the final product - image quality in a paper (and online). I have not seen any examples of how any of these cameras work in an actual real-world scenario that I'm in. I want to see samples of night high school football in crappy lighting with 24MP and 45MP testing the low light capability, auto focus and what it looks like to crop on both. The videos and I've found have been mostly auto racing, water polo and pro and college stadiums and gyms with super lighting. Or wildlife, weddings, concerts and portraits.

[p4pictures]

I get the same loss of light as I do with DSLR. 1.4x loses 1-stop and 2x loses 2-stops. 

Perhaps the confusion comes from misunderstanding which extenders to use and where. 

camera - mount adapter - EF extender - EF lens works

camera - rf extender - mount adapter - EF lens does not work. Actually the mount adapter doesn’t physically fit on the front of the RF extender. I have tried! 

For me I don’t find any loss of functionality using EF lenses with EF extenders on the R-series cameras, at least in comparison to using the same EF lenses on R-series cameras.