mdripper wrote in post #18472457
I'm confused by your comment. Weight different between an A9 and a 1DX II is 673 grams for the A9 to 1530 grams for the 1DX. that enough of a difference. Not sure where you got a 5d my iv from. Also I use a 3 axis gimbal which won't support a 1DX but would support an A9 which is why it would be great if canon released such a camera so I wouldn't have to sell all of my canon gear,l and lose money in the process switching to Sony. I'd even be fine if canon had a Nikon D850 competitor.
His point is that a DSLR body isn't that much lighter by itself, a 1DX is intentionally large due to the vertical grip integration.
mdripper wrote in post #18472477
I'm close but it would be way easier and cheaper if I could keep my canon glass. I've read the adapters hurt performance and aren't very reliable.
It would be a few hundred bucks cheaper since you wouldn't need the Sigma or Metabones adapter, but being Canon their camera would cost hundreds more than the Sony anyway, so really the "cheaper" argument is void. As for adapters hurting performance and being unreliable... I don't think that's the case anymore. My friend uses Canon glass on his a6500 all the time and loves it.
I seriously don't get people's desire for an EF mount MILC... that defeats the purpose of going mirrorless. Canon already has an excellent EF to EF-M adapter, and it's cheap. They've already proven that tech, there's zero reason to make an EF mount MILC, if they did make it it'd be entirely because of poorly informed consumers having an inherent bias against their own EF adapters. They could even sell the adapter with the camera, if all you use is EF glass than just leave the adapter permanently attached.