Smudgey Loc: Ohio, Calif, Now Arizona

There is some great advice here along with a little bit of bias, and I am no different. So here go's. Full frame is a little larger - a little heavier, but as a rule it will give you better quality images, especially at higher ISOs. If you ever shot film in the old days 4X5 sheet film would give you higher quality images than 35mm. Full Frame is somewhat the same. I have shot football for many years and if any of your photography is at night using stadium lights, you will be using higher ISO settings. You may want to crop the photo later and if you shoot Raw Full Frame images, your final image will be better than crop sensor images. But just like the others have said, it's your choice, both will give you good quality, better than film images.

rfmaude41 Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)

Same with a DX, eh ?

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I bought a Fuji also (and it’s a great camera), and for the same reason (it’s my lightweight travel camera), but I’m not getting rid of my FF - there are still plenty of times when the low light/high IO capability and advanced AF of the FF are a necessity for me. Each has it’s place.

berchman Loc: South Central PA

The major part of my photography is when I travel. I have used ISO 12,800 on the Fuji and it's been acceptable. The AF when used correctly for moving subjects is just as good if not better than my Nikon D800. The EVF is priceless. At home I do studio portraits and macro. I use the Fuji 50-140 for the portraits and I have adapted a Tamron 180mm macro, originally for my Nikon, to the Fuji. I am so pleased with the quality of the Fuji that I have no remaining reason to stick with the Nikon. I eagerly await the introduction of the X-T3.

NCMtnMan Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC

Buy the best glass you can afford. Not that the camera body isn't important, but it's mostly a sophisticated receptacle to receive the image. And, the quality of the lens is what mostly controls that. Think of it like this, most people don't have vision problems because of their retina (the camera body with sensor). It's issues with the lens in their eye or the shape of the cornea (that holds the lens). My 98 year old mother-in-law had cataract surgery when she was in her early 80's. She doesn't even need reading glasses still. I would venture to say that all of the things you are considering will give you more than you realize is possible for the photography. Possibly look into renting each of the bodies and a good travel type lens and see how you like them. Just remember that really good lenses can often move up with a new body if you decide to upgrade years from now. I can still use the lenses that I used on my Nikon film cameras from 30+ years ago.

DebDKusz Loc: PA

This is what I also initially thought that it’s the lens that really ‘makes’ the picture and not so much the body. Am I correct to think that way?

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

It is less true today with digital than it was with film.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Cameras and lenses do not make photos. PEOPLE make photos. The user always is responsible for what the camera and lens do, no matter how much automation is involved (You still choose from a wide variety of controls to be applied! NOT to decide is to decide...).

The quality of the lens does limit what the camera can do with it, from a "technical image quality" perspective. But that limitation is only important under marginal conditions.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

The body (basically the sensor) will have some effect, however cheap glass on a great sensor will not give you great results. You need the clarity in the lens(es).

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

The OP is very clearly targeting just about the most "marginal conditions" facing general photographers today. Night or indoor school sports present a challenge where each small increment in equipment capability will directly be seen in the resulting photos.

To get the best use of any given budget requires careful study and a "system" implementation where each part of the system is purchased based on knowing exactly how the entire system will function.

It would, for example, make no sense at all to spend money on the absolute best lens and put it in an entirely inappropriate camera. The same is true for a very high end camera with a low end consumer grade lens.

How that concept is best implemented in this case was discussed at length in a previous article.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Exactly. Indoor sports in the typically poorly lighted gym drives you to full frame (high ISO low noise performance)
excellent AF capability and fast lenses (and sometimes high frame rate). One of the most demanding environments - fast moving subjects and low light...

DebDKusz Loc: PA

I did not look into the 6dmkII but am now comparing it as well. Price wise it’s not bad compare to the 5d (which is a great thing!). I’ve read so many positive reviews on the 5D and that is why I selected it in comparison to the 80D. I don’t need top of the line and definitely not the most expensive item but to me any big purchase is an investment and I just want to make sure that I won’t regret it.

I understand it all comes down to a personal choice and I want to not regret on that choice of the camera. I won’t be printing out enormous pictures to fill wall space but maybe a max of 16x20, I wouldn’t think anything larger.

As far as my indoor shots , I’m most positive it’s my own error as it comes out orangish in color and/or blurry (exposure I would guess). Again, please bare with me as I’m still learning and not on an expertise level as to how explain what I did wrong without looking back.. but I would love to capture ‘that’ image of my son playing and when cropped it can be a wow Picture without the graininess and pixelated (?) effect. I hope that makes sense into what I’m looking for.

This being said I’m thankful for each ones opinions, information and guidance provided. It has helped me tremendously on my search.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

If we ever let this thread die down, you'll have time to catch up on your lessons

Orangish color is likely white balance:
https://digital-photography-school.com/introduction-to-white-balance/

Blurry means too slow a shutter speed for the conditions: caused by moving subjects and/or your inability to hold the camera steady enough. Sometimes it's focus (auto-focus issues in low light or other low-contrast situations, for example).

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

And yet, we did that sort of work in the 1970s with 400 speed films pushed to 1280 or 1600... manual focus... no flash... no auto winders... and got useable images!

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I know! We pushed TriX 2 stops to ASA 1600, used the fastest lens we had (50 f1.2 or 135 f2-2.8), flash if possible, and enlarged as needed (and we lived with the grain). I think of that often when I now shoot at ISO 12,800, but I did at least have a 5 FPS motor drive most of the time on my Canon F1N.