I have an R8 and have had plenty of thoughts surrounding the desire for the higher 45 MP. I will be upgrading camera bodies in September and have been mainly considering the R3 or the R5, and I'm currently leaning towards the R3. I currently shoot exclusively with EF L-series glass.

I should also explain that though this has primarily been an expensive hobby (it's funny because it's true), I am also now getting into paid shoots. However, my main focus is the love of the art, and not as a primary source of income.

My main interest is shooting people; I've recently shot a niece's engagement, wedding and reception; a nephew's Prom photos of 5 couples, family photos, portraits, etc. This all obviously had me leaning towards the R5. And I honestly have been quite satisfied with results of the 24 MP on the R8, but I have a friend who has an R5 and I do of course see the benefits of being able to crop/zoom in, larger prints and whatnot.

However, I have also recently gotten into sports photography since I currently have three young teenagers (one daughter, two sons) who are and will continue to be in sports for at least the next 5 years (swim team, basketball, baseball/softball, lacrosse, football/flag, volleyball), which ultimately is leaning me towards the R3.

So for the moment, my conclusion is that the R3 gives me the best of both worlds in regards to what I shoot. I was hoping that the R5II would be an improvement where I could use it adequately for sports, to essentially be an upgraded R3 with 45 MP.

And I have even considered splurging and getting an R1, but with 24 MP, at the moment I would rather go with an R3. My primary hesitation on spending the extra cash for an R1 is my disappointment in it not being, in my opinion, truly a "flagship", meaning that it doesn't have the literal best of all options. I'm thinking 45 MP, Global shutter, 40 fps electronic, 120 fps burst, limitless buffer or near to it, etc.

Admittedly, I need to read up more, and watch more review videos about the R5II and the R1. I would genuinely appreciate input about these two new behemoths, the good and the bad, thoughts for or against, and then please specifically if you believe the R1 is worth the extra cost to be considered over the R3.

Do you think the R5II would be a good consideration for sports? Or should I stick to the R3?

Or possibly the R1...?

Thanks in advance!

I was set on buying a Sony A7rV for the longest time. I had forgot that Canon was releasing so many models around the same time. With the holidays approaching I'm thinking about pulling the trigger. I'm not currently involved in either system. Can someone explain to me like I'm 5 how I should compare and contrast these cameras? I don't use video whatsoever.

Edit: I should've included what I photograph.

Landscape- heavily if/when traveling. Wildlife- heavily. Street- heavily. Sports- auto events and some other fast paced subjects from time to time (I've learned to be successful with low fps, so while higher is nicer, i don't "need" it). Portraits- hardly but not never. Low light capabilities would help but i could also have a separate camera for that purpose like a sony a9iii. No studio work. No video. When traveling or going out to shoot i tend to go into cities and into the country/ nature more so than "events" and as i said, never studio work.

Thanks

Looking to upgrade to mirrorless and debating between the R3 body or R5 Mark II body. Currently only about $400 price difference but wasnt sure if Canon will be releasing anything comparable new before the end of the year.

Anyone mess with both and have a preference?

Shooting concerts (low light), portrait events, real estate, and construction. Mostly photos but occasionally video. R3 video goes up to 6k, while R5II gets to 8k.

The body size and feel will be something I got to get used to with the R3 as I've been a dual t6i shooter for over a decade.

Hi guys!

I’m looking to switch from Nikon D850 to Canon for multiple reasons but I’m curious which of the three cams above has the BEST autofocus and suits my work of feeld.

I shoot events fulltime from festivals/artists to big congresses and dark techno clubs so I’m willing to pay the premium to improve my workflow since getting the right shot can be crucial. I don’t care about video nor which camera has the fastest shutter or burst speed so no billion fps needed.

Thanks in advance!!

Canon R3 or R5 mark II? I wanted to upgrade from my R100. There’s no stores within 2.5 hrs to go look at them in person so I’m looking for advice. They are both on sale for $3999.99 which one is the better option they both seem relatively close on comparison. I do mostly sports and family portraits and children! My main lens will be a RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM. Just looking for some advice before I purchase later on tonight(online). Thanks!

Hello everyone! I’m currently making a switch from Nikon to Canon. I do a lot of portrait work, product, wildlife, sports and race photography. Right now I’m debating on whether to get the R3 or the R5mk ii. Obviously I’m going to get the r5 ii new when it comes out which is 4300 but I’m seeing prices of the r3 being around 3200-3600 which is almost a grand difference

So far I looked at bh to compare the two and so far the only noticeable difference really is the mp. Should I save the $1000 and put it in a good L lense or pull the trigger and wait for the r5 ii?