>>4385295Initially couldn't find the rolling shutter spec for 12-bit A9ii. Did find it and it is better than R6/R6ii if you can tolerate lower DR, worse high ISO, and compressed RAWs. I don't seem to encounter rolling shutter issues with 20 fps stills, so I'll stick with DR, ISO, and proper RAWs.
Also confirmed that the A9ii RAW buffer rating is only for 12-bit lossy compressed. Imagine charging $4,500 for a "pro" camera and bragging about the buffer depth, and it's only for lossy compressed RAWs.
>>4385296>You simply failed to refute the pointIs that why you're now lecturing us on which features really matter and suggesting Sony users buy multiple cameras to try and get a feature set to match one Canon?
>Canon excels where no one cares. 40fps - 75 shot buffer. Sony A9ii excels where no one cares. 12-bit lossy compressed low DR noisy high ISO RAWs.
>once its too high to be used25600 is perfectly usable on the R6, but I agree that on the A9ii your max ISO is probably 12800.
>Sharper 4k - but the intended customer has a second running a fx3 for thatSony: just buy another camera bro.
>Better at pushing shadows than an a9, worse than an a7rSo now you are comparing across tiers in a pathetic attempt to make Sony look better? What if you need the DR while shooting sports? I guess then the Sony guy can just buy a Canon and have three cameras? Or maybe just buy Canon to begin with. Just take the L and admit that the A9ii is an overpriced "pro" sports camera beat by Canon mid tier.
