BIF with R5 and RF 100-500mm compared to A9II and FE 200-600 G

Ed Jefferies wrote:

Steve W wrote:

Subutai wrote:

I agree.

I don't see them as being so drastically far apart in AF that the A1 justifies the extra $3000 unless there's a specific scenario (such as Arbitrage's) that warrants it and even then, it'd have to be a pretty significant improvement.

If you like the Sony ecosystem, then yeah, the A1 is the only option for high mega pixel and best in class AF... but it comes at a hefty price, but I guess that's relative to each person's pocket book.

As I've heard it said in another forum, "Sony did something that they likely did not want to with the A1 and that's make the R5 look like a bargain."

The higher cost of the A1 has been holding me back even though if I never bought back into the Canon RF system I could have had the money to just buy the body and battery grip. Can also afford it if I sell of thyme RF kit. I bought my R5 though befor the A1 was announced.

So today I’m still trying to decide what to do. Lurking in the back of my mind is also the potential of the teased EOS R3. Canon knew what the were doing when the leaked it a few months after the A1 was announced. waiting at this point to hear more about that camera.
Is it possible that Sony would consider an A9 III? A new 30-36 Mpixels sports / wildlife at maybe $4500. It would be a great response to Canon going up market with the R3 to go down market and challenge the R5.

Sony has already postponed their vlogging camera announcement twice, hinting it was due to the semiconductor shortage.

I would not expect any new releases until 2022, except maybe the R3. So its likely the R5 will continue to have no competition within $2500 of its price. The only question, is can Canon make enough of them to satisfy demand?

Right now it appears the A1 is easier to get than the RF 100-500. So I can’t use the R5 for BIF unless I bought a lens to adapt. Really don’t see a point in that.