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

MyDog Is Incharge wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

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.

If I already had Sony stuff and not Canon I wouldn’t even consider Canon at this point. My decision would be does the A9 Ii cut it for me or do I want an A1.

I am more open minded. If I shot only landscapes I would likely get the A7Riv. The A1 is overpriced in my opinion, and the A9ii on sale is a good value. Overall, for what I do the R5 is best of the bunch. But that is for me who shoots a lot of video as well as wildlife.

I think its a shame Sony didn't first make a $4000 camera with similar specs to the R5 because I believe that's what more people wanted. The A1 is very expensive and while in some ways is better than the R5, it also lags in many ways, IMHO, especially considering the body and ergonomics it is not the best camera these days.

I do look forward to the A7Rv, but with the chip shortage it might be another year or so before we see it. and from Sony's history it will have many lesser specs than the A1 if its price is $4000 or less.

And who know maybe Nikon will surprise all of us. Keep an open mind,

My point isn’t if R5 is better than some Sony model... It’s if you’re already interested in a system the difference between the two is so small it’s probably not worth all the expense of changing.  We’re talking about two fantastic systems here.