Having asserted that one cannot get a viable MILC solution, you are justifying it by choosing different items from those I listed and would frankly say are not necessary. The care pack @ $420 is something I would expect a high-end user or professional to purchase rather than a beginner, and would be down my list of things to spend money on: Canon offers at least a year warranty on new gear as I understand it (over here it's five years). I would expect a care pack to be practical where one is dealing in relatively high-risk activities, such as shooting in all weathers and conditions and that is not normal for starters, but one can provide protection via covers etc. at a far lower price than a care pack for such activities. I have shot as a professional and amateur for 44 years now and have not broken a lens or body yet - so, it's about risk mitigation.
Because the image shows a lens hood does not mean it comes with one. If you click on the What's in the Box object, you will see they provide only front and rear caps. Canon have consistently got flak for this habit of not including hoods with non-L grade lenses. I purchase them to protect the front along with a protect filter. I get 3rd party hoods at a fraction of the Canon price because they are just a bit of plastic but I do get decent filters.
I had allowed the $550 for the items I list and and I don't see need for a gimble - that is more appropriate for moving objects like birds or aircraft. For someone starting out that is a luxury - I have spent most of my life shooting wildlife and scenic and on the rare occasions when I use a tripod, I have used a ball head without feeling the loss. Remember, this is to get them going, not spend money on non-essentials.
Yes, at full frame, the 100-400 is a starter lens, and the OP is a starter and much depends on what kinds of wildlife they intend to shoot. I used to shoot large macro mammals, especially predators, but now I live in NZ I am mostly limited to birds, because NZ has no native mammals except for a small bat. So, I do shoot long for open spaces, but in bush (i.e. forest to others) it's usually much closer.
However, depending on what the shooter produces, which is why I list it as a critical question, the high probability is that they are going to learn with digital output, and that has implications. If they are intending to shoot for social media or digital display, they can simply crop a FF image in post or shoot in 1.3 or 1.6 crop mode. At 1.6 crop the 20MP sensor on the R6 renders a 7.8MP image. Most sites will simply downsize the images below that themselves - this one has a max limit of 5GB, for example.
If they choose to print, the conventional wisdom suggests that they will start with smaller prints rather than very large ones detailed ones that are going to be examined at nose distance, but most people appreciate an image at a comfortable viewing distance. So, how big a print can one make with such a resolution? Here is a chart:
Essentially, at 8MP, one can make a very good print up to around 12"x8" that will do for pixel peepers, but 16"x12" for normal viewing. A 20MP sensor will deliver around 18"x12" for high quality and 27"x18" for normal mortals.
One can play with the numbers to spend back and forth, but the basic question remains above all...
What is the future potential for someone starting out, choosing between a DSLR platform that has shown absolutely no new developments in 4 years, and is eroding its offerings (there are precisely 6 DSLRs of all model levels and 34 DSLR lenses of all price points for sale on the Canon site), or a MILC one that is continually adding new lenses and bodies all the time?
Not only are those MILC bodies representative of a platform that has a future, but they already surpass the performance of many of the higher-end models of the DSLR platform - IBIS, face and eye tracking, better sensors to mention just a few. I dealt with this at some length but it doesn't seem to gain traction for you.
Yes, one might well spend less on DSLR gear, and there is a lot of it out there right now and for good reason, but that does not make it the best choice for someone starting out. As to EF lenses, one can use them on an R-series body via an adapter (I still shoot with them from time to time) but that will not work out the other way. MILC bodies will still work with optics to be released in the future - both by Canon and likely third-party suppliers - there are strong indications that Sigma will make some sort of announcement about RF mount lenses in February, for example.
I get your points of view, but I think you tend to cherry pick items to support your case - like confusing professional needs and characteristics with those of starters. Many of the things you say are necessary are, IMHO, not so. If the OP wants them they can get those at a later date when they have proven the have outgrown their initial gear.
In the end we are both expressing points of view and that is not a bad thing, I think we need to wait to get some feedback from our OP rather than beat the topic to death.
