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

Steve W wrote:

I'm sure the is back and forth on the R5 and A1 and I will let this debate go on.
The cost difference is substantial for sure. I guess my question is "Is the A9 II so inferior that it should be left out of the discussion?"

I am talking about BIF only without considering video. Both can do 20 fps and yes I know the R5 is still cheaper if you by the A9 II new but if your already in the Sony camp why wouldn't you consider it? Sure it still lower resolution I know. For me to add an A9 II to use with lenses like the 200-600 I already have it would cost me $3200 (used) vs $6500 for an R5 and RF 100-500.

They're all brilliant, a big step up from everything else - we're nit picking over the scraps here.

As for cost differential it's not as bad as it looks.

A1 + 200-600 + TC1.4 = AUD $13,000

R5 + 100-500 + TC1.4 = AUD $11,000

That Canon lens is expensive.

And if you get a second. hand a9 it will likely only cost a bit over $2000k and be just as good as the a9ii.

Having said that I am able to capture images of birds I have not been able to capture with the A9 because they are just too fast and the camera cannot acquire focus fast enough in the second of two the bird is in the frame.  They're nearly impossible to track so you just get a bit lucky and then the A1 seems to deliver for me.

Others may be much better at tracking small birds than I am so may have more success.  Perhaps the R5 is as quick to acquire but then you may have to have a few more attempts to get a good composition with the lower frame rate.

Yep I know I should have been lying down and I had been but of course this guy arrived as I stood up to leave.