Hello! Longtime professional photographer here and going on 5 years shooting with Canon! I shoot mostly weddings, events, graduations and headshots professionally and also love to shoot birds in flight for fun. I currently have an R5 Mark ii and an R5. When shooting in low light I see a little more noise on the R5M2 vs. the R5 which Im sure is a result of the stacked, BSI sensor. However, the R5M2, for me, has been an absolute joy to use! I am considering trading in my R5 for a used R3 and am interested in your opinion as to whether or not I will notice a fairly big improvement with low light and high ISO image quality. In the low light shoots I have I will shoot as high as 25600 ISO but most of the time 6400 to 12800. Im hoping for a fairly large improvement if/when I switch. Thank you very much for your input and I appreciate you time and expertise! best to you, Rick
I know this post is kind of old, but I'll respond anyway. I have neither camera, but the R3 should handle low light better simply because of the larger pixels, both are full frame but the R5 is packing 45mp onto the same space the R3 has 24mp, so the pixels are quite a bit larger on the R3, and larger pixels can receive more light. More megapixels isn't always better for every use. I chose my R6 markII because it was the best low light camera in my price range that fit my requirements. I do a lot of early morning wildlife shooting and it has worked great for me.
You should see a genuine improvement with the R3 in the ISO range you’re shooting. The difference isn’t night and day, but it’s noticeable in real work. Files from the R3 at 6400 to 12800 tend to look cleaner, with smoother grain and better color in the shadows. At 25600, the gap becomes easier to spot, especially if you push exposure in post. It simply holds together better.
