I'm not gonna lie I've had a lot of bad experiences with Canon recently and that's partially why I'm making this post...
With Sony charging $6,000 for the a9 III I think the message is clear: Canon can't compete with Sony and they no longer need to price accordingly. The fact that Sony has recently been pricing all their gear at or above "equivalent" Canon models suggest they have never really been afraid of Canon, now they're charging $6,000 for a 24MP a9 III while Canon is struggling with a 24MP R6 II priced at $2,300. Which technically is a 48MP sensor due to it's dual pixel design. The fact that Sony is nearly tripling the cost of the R6 II pretty much makes a statement that they no longer intend to be #2 in the marketplace but #1.
Now, you may think the a9 III is an R3 competitor but it's really not. The a9 series is what Canon was targeting with the R6. The specs and form factor prove it. The previous pricing on the a9 was pretty steep, more of an R5 price tag, but Sony has decided they can add $1,500 to that price which puts it squarely in 1Dx territory. Obviously the 1Dx and the a9 are vastly different and I can only imagine that if Sony were to do a 1Dx style camera it would be priced above $10,000 USD.
Basically they're saying they can sell a tiny, lightweight, low resolution camera for $2,000 more than an R5 and $500 more than an R3.
Sony thinks that Canon RF is second tier, and their pricing proves it.
For me personally, I'll never buy a Sony camera because I think they're fraudulent. For one, I think the a9 III is a glorified cellphone camera that is using digital fixes whether the user turns fixes on or off in the camera. By definition this is fraud. Digitally fixing crappy lenses that cost $3,000 is fraud. I'm not going to sit idly by and be robbed by a bunch of lazy morons at Sony and Canon who can't work up the gumption to figure out how to build a camera lens properly.
I'm not going to sit here and pretend that I should accept a $3,000 lens that has 12 pixels of blazingly bright chromatic aberration near the center of the image because I can fix it digitally in Lightroom. I just want to know why the lens costs $3,000? You know what else we can do digitally? We can add fake bokeh, fake sky, fake everything. Why even buy a camera I can just use stable diffusion if I want a lame digitally fixed photo.
The basic reality is that the digital fixes in an iPhone will equal or surpass what a Sony or a Canon are capable of in maybe 1 or 2 years. The only reason to continue with Canon and Sony is that they offer a real picture. If it's all going to be digital fraud imagery, then Sony and Canon are just overpriced cellphones.
