Canon R3 or R1?
I'm a semi-professional sports photographer and currently have an R3 as my main camera and R6 MII as a secondarly/backup camera. I want to upgrade the R6, and I'm going back and forth between another R3 and an R1. The R1 is about $2,000 more through the used site I am planning on purchasing from. I've borrowed the R1 from Canon and love it, especially the faster autofocus, but I'm trying to convince myself it's worth another $2k.
Some background: sports photography is a second job for me — I don't make a ton off of it, but I do make money off of it and most of that money goes back into gear/expenses. I have the money saved to be able to buy either camera, so that's not really an issue, though obviously one leave me an extra $2,000 to spend somewhere else.
I primarily shoot major junior hockey in the winter (OHL) and youth hockey, and in the summer I shoot motorsports (regional late model short track series). I also do some portrait work, team photos, media days, things like that, primarily for youth hockey teams.
What would you do if you were in my shoes?
- Stick with the R3 and the R6 MII that have worked OK, though the R6 has some drawbacks
- Get another R3 — two of the same camera, perfect backup if something goes wrong with one
- Jump on the R1 — better autofocus. Other additional features. Current R3 is a solid backup for an R1.
- Forget the R1 and R3 and get an R5 Mark II — more megapixels, cheaper than the R1. Downfall is rolling shutter on electronic shutter, which I use almost exclusively.