*lol*
Isn't it cool how biased such an article can be....
problem #1: service
[quote author=the article]
... We've talked about the structural considerations that may prevent some working pros from switching systems.
But let's imagine that those logistical concerns aren't a problem, ...
[/quote]
But it still is.
Losing a job because of waiting for service costs money and reputation.
And as long as the concerns remain, writing and reading such an article is a waste of time everybody has to consider.
If it's for fun then take your fun time for it
problem #2: reach
Those sports and action pros wanting/needing >> 10 fps also need reach.
Sony ends up at 400mm/f5.6 (with the 100-400mm GM). This is where the fun begins on the sidelines.
400/2.8, 500/4.0, 600/4.0, all the big whites (C) and blacks (N) are only partly in Sonys lineup and only as A-mount. How is the impact on AF performance with the adapter?
Sony MRSP for 500/4.0: 15.000,- Euro (street: 12.000,-) + adaper
Canon MRSP for 500/4.0: 11.980,- Euro (street: 8.900,-)
That will fund you a second body.
problem #3: mechanical built
I am willing to believe that the a9 body can keep up with the 5D/7D series built.
But with the 1D series (or Nikon D4 or D5)? Not really.
Summary:
That article is really just for fun. At least for a few more years.
Edit: after checking twice I noticed that they even cheated by comparing apples and oranges, e.g.
taking the EF16-35/2.8 III instead of the F4/ IS which would be directly comparable to the Sony F4 ZA OSS.
I love biased tests and articles :