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.

[Sportseditor123]

Thanks for all the info, Rodger! I appreciate it! Those are some nice shots!

Have you ever used an R3 or R5 Mark II? I'd rather get the newer technology. Plus, it doesn't look like the price of the 1DX Mark III has moved much given all the mirrorless releases. My initial plan was to scoop up the top-end DSLR when everybody bought the new stuff, but prices aren't falling anywhere near what I would like.

[wq9nsc]

I tried a R-3 and I didn't care for it.  There was no benefit for me and a lot of drawbacks.  I may test a R-1 once it has been out for some time and has several versions of firmware updates because some of the R series have had some serious software/firmware glitches while my 1 series have always been dead reliable and I was a very early adopter of the 1DX, 1DX II, and 1DX III.

Two weeks ago I gave some football images from a game to a photographer for a sports website who was shooting with a R-3.  His camera locked up twice during the game and one lockup caused him to miss a great interception that we were both in perfect position to capture.  He had been at another game prior to this one and his second battery died just before the game winning 2 point conversion in overtime so I gave him that sequence also.

I know that if I switched to mirrorless, I would have to significantly change my shooting habits because I watch most of the events through the viewfinder and I definitely don't want to spend that much time staring at an EVF.  I would also have to change from that behavior to avoid having to carry extra batteries but the point I would want to investigate most is how much higher ISO performance varies due to sensor heating when it is constantly active in high performance mode while viewing the sport.  I don't chase technology, my only concern is what a camera body delivers under my use conditions.

Rodger

[WestrnLawman]

I’m in somewhat the same boat seeking the same answers. I currently own a Canon 1DX Mark II with EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS II USM and EF 1.4x III extender (all bought used but in like-new condition a couple of months ago). I’m mainly an enthusiast just getting back into the art after years away. I initially bought the camera to primarily shoot my daughter’s high school wrestling and D2 rodeo events, which in our area typically means indoor gyms and covered arenas with terrible, contrasting lighting. 

Wrestling season hasn’t started yet but I’ve shot an outdoor rodeo and HS football game in bright sunlight (with satisfactory results overall as I experimented with various settings) followed this past weekend by an indoor rodeo arena with horrible overhead lighting exacerbated by several large, open bay doors (bright, sunlit backdrops) in the background. 

A professional photographer also shooting the rodeo told me this was one of the worst arena to shoot in her experience, and that many other photographers avoid it for that reason. I was dissatisfied with my results shooting (RAW) wide open (f/2.8) in manual mode with auto ISO (which might be part of my problem) and mostly shutter speeds between 800-1,250 (most were 1,000). The camera set ISO for most shots at 25,600 or just under. While I haven’t attempted much post processing yet (Lightroom Classic, which I’m also still learning), the images appear far more grainy with less recoverable detail than I had expected (I previously shot an indoor gymkhana with bad lighting but better results). I had read that ISO 25,600 with this camera still produced usable results but that wasn’t my experience here. I can’t yet eliminate user error (camera settings or post processing) but the experience has me wondering if I’d get better low light performance (and auto focus—the camera sometimes struggled tracking the riders faces resulting in many out of focus shots using AI Servo AF Mode—I’m sure the terrible lighting didn’t help) by upgrading to a R3 or R5 Mark II.  However, I can’t decide between the two. 

I’m attracted to the R3’s rugged pro-body and controls (similar to, but smaller/lighter than the 1DX Mark II I’m using—a plus) but it is 3-4 years old. I also hear Canon Rumors reported that a R3 Mark II may come out next year.  The R5Mark II is the latest, just released model and has a higher MP count, which is attractive to me including for cropping. What to do…?

I also intend to buy Canon’s EF 24-70mm f/2.8 IS II USM lens, or the RF version depending on what camera I go with, but have been holding off while I weigh this camera body decision. 

While sports and low light capability were my original focus, and are still important to me, I am also attracted to the R5 Mark II’s “freshness” and reportedly improved auto focus/tracking capabilities, as well as its designed broader, multi-purpose range.

I too am hoping the more experienced pros and enthusiasts can help point us in the right direction (the R1 is out of my realistic price range, but I do believe in the “buy once, cry once” principle). 

Maybe wq9nsc / Rodger can weigh in here again having tried the R3 vs. the 1DX Mark IIIs he currently prefers? How does the Mark III compare to the Mark II and R3 for ISO, low light, and auto focus ability for our purposes?

Thanks for posting and good luck in your decision. Let us know what you do!

Steve  

[wq9nsc]

Steve,

I still have a pair of 1DX Mark II bodies that I use at times and the ISO performance is pretty close to the Mark III but the III clearly has an edge.  I use Canon's DPP for RAW file processing and it does a great job with noise reduction, there are external alternatives that do a bit more with AI but in general I prefer the very realistic results from DPP.

First photo is from a soccer match last night: ISO 40,000 captured with 1DX III and EF 400 f2.8 @ f2.8, 1/1000, auto ISO.  I think detail recovery is fine for a sports photo shot at such high ISO and it is cropped from about 25% of the available sensor area.

I also try to capture some quick sideline shots during events and often I don't even want to take time to use the mfn button to switch between two sets of exposure settings so both of the attached were taken with my usual dark field gain settings using a 1DX III and EF 70-200 f2.8  @ f.2, 1/1000, auto ISO and these two photos were both at ISO 51,200.

I didn't spend enough time with the R3 files to get a good feel for them and I may take a closer look at the R1 in the future but if so I really want to see how continuous use (including pre-shot buffering which is the only thing I have seen that really interests me) impacts sensor noise performance as it heats up from continuous operation in high performance mode).

Rodger

1DX III EF 400 ISO 40,0001DX III EF 70-200 ISO 51,2001DX III EF 70-200 ISO 51,200

[WestrnLawman]

Rodger, thanks for the prompt and informative reply. Your example images look quite usable/acceptable to me (nice pics BTW). Based on your own usage, I decided to install and try Canon's DPP to review my photos after making a copy of the image folder from the CF Card on my desktop.  Still a fair bit of noise (without any additional processing/editing added other than whatever is added during import into DPP) but noticeably better than when I looked at a few yesterday.  I have not made any changes to the 1DX Mark II's default in-camera processing/export settings but merely selected my images to be saved as RAW files. Now I'm debating whether or not to try editing in Lightroom Classic. 

I'll try uploading a sample later though this site requires smaller JPEG. 

[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]

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.

[zakslm]

Forgive me for saying this, but I hope you are not worrying that you are not going to make the absolute best choice and overthinking your decision and maybe miss out on an opportunity or market timing.  R3's from the Canon Refurbished Store are going for $4,049 and that's probably a very good deal!  

My semi-informed opinion is that you cannot make a bad choice.  Both cameras are amazing and far beyond what I would ever need for my feeble attempts at making images otherwise known as my photography hobby/obsession.  

My personal recommendation is "follow the herd".  By that I mean if you're a sports shooter, do what other sports shooters do and take a hint from Canon.  What Canon puts into cameras like the R3 is a result of listening to it potential market for that product then designing it around those needs.  The same would hold true for wedding and event photographers and their chosen tools as well well as landscape photographers. Go with what others use and trust and buy with their hard earned dollars.  Not all of them can be wrong.  

Rather than listen to me, please check out what Community member wq9nsc's (aka Rodger) posts, his answers to questions about shooting night football and sports and his possibly solicit his opinion.  His profile is here:

https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/102866

Also check out Jeff Cable's Olympic Blog and other blogs  https://blog.jeffcable.com/search/label/2024%20Summer%20Olympics.  I'm not sure what camera he uses for landscapes, but I think he used the R3 for most of his work at the Paris Olympics.

Good luck!

LZ

[Sportseditor123]

Thanks, LZ. I appreciate it.

I've already overthought it. I'd like to make an informed decision before I spend $5K.

Jeff Cable is outstanding. He also shoots the Olympics, which I don't find applicable.

Rodger actually commented. He shoots with a DSLR.

I just can't seem to find credible information on the R3 and R5 Mark II in how either works in situations I need a camera for.

Some of info I'm finding is wrong. Canon itself told me DSLR extenders don't work on mirrorless cameras. That's apparently not true from what I learned in this community. Then the Canon chat person said you would lose more stops than normal. That's apparently not true, either.

Tony Northrup said he didn't think the R3 gets 30 frames per second, counting the shots off another YouTube video (he didn't have the camera yet). Jared showed that it does. I don't need that many shots, but if I'm seeing BS info I get suspicious.

I'm essentially stuck on low-light performance vs. cropping. I need both. Sounds like Canon only offers one in one camera and the other in another. Smart business move. Keep people buying.

[zakslm]

Sportseditor123,

Maybe look into renting each body for a day or 2?  

If that is feasible, maybe hands on experience and seeing the results with your own eyes would be better than reading reviews and watching YouTube videos?