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]

I rented an R5 for a weekend. It was nice, but anything I use would be an upgrade. The learning curve had to be quick given my old body.

I did notice the rolling shutter at soccer, which I wasn't a fan of. I know the Mark II improved it and the R3 is a touch better.

I can't find anywhere in a two-hour drive in my area to rent an R3 or R5 Mark II.

[March411]

Lensrental has them (R3) for $300 for 7 days, they are located in Memphis, TN 38125

[March411]

---

@zakslm wrote:

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?

Sportseditor123,

I was in the same position as you and it's a difficult decision. I was lucky enough to get my hands on both bodies for some field time. The R5 MkII is nice, the pre-capture and 45 MP are a plus. Like you I wanted to have the ability to manage noise, fast focus and good weather sealing and the R3 fits the bill.

I also attempted to researched build build quality and as time has rolled on more people are reporting that the weather sealing on the R5 MkII may not be sufficient. Cameras are failing and people are finding water in the battery compartments.  There may be a couple posts on this site regarding the weather sealing if you search. 

Like others have said, you can't really go wrong with either body. You need to decide what features fit within your vision for your next body. For me it was the the R3, the focus is fast and accurate, built in grips, the weather sealing is solid, the battery life is outstanding and it's built like a tank. So far I haven't regretted my decision but it's early.

[Celts88]

Hi Mark

I've currently got an R6mkII and also looking at the R3. I'm not so worried with it only being 24mp as I feel there's too much focus on the extra mp's of the R5mkII and less on the other aspects (which are an improvement on the original R5).

Have you found the R3 a worthwhile upgrade on the R6mkII or is it only an incremental upgrade?

Cheers, John

[zakslm]

I just received a promotional e-mail from Adorama.

They’re advertising the R3 for about $4,000 and some very interesting prices on other bodies like the R5 and R6. 

[March411]

Hey John,

The R3 has been a fantastic addition to my my current bodies. I still love the R6 MkII, it is light and performs great but I personally believe the R3 focus is much faster, especially with big whites (better battery) and the tracking simply locks on and holds better then the R6, just an opinion/observation. When the weather is questionable it is definitely my go to body.

[Tronhard]

I can see no reason why you would not go for the R3, considering it was specifically designed for sports and news journalists.  It's 24MP sensor offers better ISO performance and dynamic range over sensors with high MP counts, and the smaller file sizes support data flowthrough from sensor to cards.  It can transmit files essentially in real time, another benefit for photographers in a competitive news market where time to publication is highly critical.

The battery is massive, and they body is built like a tank.  The focusing and tracking system is top end and the eye tracking enhances the location of subjects just by looking at them.

Certainly, other cameras offer more MP but, as I mentioned, they will take more time to process and download, and to transmit without real benefit as most news agencies will create material on-line or for magazine or paper publications where size is not a benefit - even for cropping.

The only areas where the R5II will best the R3 are in some applications of eye focusing, and the tracking of the trajectory of a large, round ball to target the person likely to get it and focus on them when it arrives.  The R5II also offers the change to pre-record images of individuals and use them to prioritize focus when they are in groups.  I can see this as really useful for social and event work, but the question is whether the extra cost and the other compromises are compensated by the much higher cost of the R5II.

[Sportseditor123]

Tronhard, thanks.

I'm after image quality. I don't transmit files for a news agency. I'm at a weekly paper so speed of transmission and file size don't matter to me.

The new cameras are close to the same price, no? $4,400 for R3 and $4,300 for RS Mark II?