Alpha vs. R1
Ah, now I understand why Sony has seemingly been so reluctant to promote the R1...I remain underwhelmed by what I read of the Alpha, I think I'll stick with the R1.
First to get the world class Zeiss lens that comes with the RI I would have to spend about $1700 for the Alpha plus the 24-120mm Zeiss lens as opposed to the $900 ( more or less) for the R1 with apparently the same lens...I don't doubt the other lenses make the camera appealing to some but I've had Minolta lenses and they weren't as good as the R1's Zeiss. But then I'm happy being a one lens shooter and the w.a. capabilities of the Zeiss 24-120 make it a great all around lens.
Second no live preview and I have found the R1's LP viewfinder to be a wonderful asset to my photography partly because it allows you to get the camera away from your eye.
One review complains about the shutter noise and other noises...you can turn the shutter sound off on the RI to make it a totally silent camera. This may seem like a small thing but I've gotten a number of excellent portraits because the subject didn't know the camera was going off.
Then there is the matter of the CMOS on the R1
Ok, it's all a matter of tastes and needs but to my mind the R1 represent a true advance on digital camera design and the Alpha is pretty much the same as the analog cameras of yesterday except of course it has digital capability. If I was going DSLR which I'm not I would still go for a Canon.