Also correct me if I'm wrong, but the R6 II is over 2000$ body alone, MSRP is 2500$Ish. For that money you should really be comparing the R6 II to the A7 IV and also if you don't mind the retro controls the Nikon Zf. For 2000$, full frame and new, your options are Canon R8 (no IBIS, but far cheaper), Sony a7III (imo really underwhelming EVF, kind of old at this point, but still a great all rounder) and Nikon Z6 II (dinky AF, but honestly great all round camera). Also look at the lenses, unlike the DSLRs canon doesn't allow third party AF lenses on the RF mount. The first party ecosystem doesn't have any middle ground lenses, better than kit but not quite professional, so you're stuck with 2000$+ 2,8 zooms and similarly pricey options. There are adapters for EF mount though. Sony is open with third parties so they have tons of lens options covering any budget, plus you can also adapt EF lenses. Nikon is starting to open up, plus has first party "middle ground" lenses, and has the shortest flange distance of any mount meaning you can adapt practically any lens to it - including Sony E mount. I think if you're on a budget Canon isn't really a good pick right now, you'll be very limited in your lens options. But if you're willing to for over the cash they probably are tied with Sony for AF, and much better at ergonomics, along with having overall excellent bodies and lenses for professionals. Nikon is coming back strong with the Z8, Z9, Zf and hopefully soon Z6 III, but their AF is arguably the weakest of the three but their latest cameras have been extremely well received, plus the lens lineup is imo a lot more robust than Canons if you're not looking for top of the line lenses. Sony is overall I feel the most balanced option, but most people have issues with the ergonomics of their bodies. More on reddit.com

I had the A7III, and it is an amazing camera, but for me, the ergonomics of the Canon beat the Sony every time. The extra savings would be nice, but to have a camera that makes me want to pick it up every day meant more than savings. More on reddit.com

A7iii would be a better camera price to performance. It’s just older and the only thing that it doesn’t have is the 10bit 422 and 4k60. But remaining specs would be the same. Dynamic range and if you are concern with cropping photos go with the a7iii. Unless you’re a canon fan boy like me. I’d go with the R6.

More on reddit.com

Unless you're making high production stuff, both will have plenty of dynamic range for you to tell the stories that you want to. If dynamic range is truly a limiting factor in storytelling then you'll be justified in stepping up to something like a black magic or RED. Considering that both of these cameras are from the same generation they should be very very similar. Since Sony makes sensors, their cameras usually have a bit of an edge so I would expect that the a73 would outperform the R6. But again, it should be really close. Dynamic range is just a tool to tell stories, there's a ton of other differences between these cameras that would make for much more compelling buys in my opinion. More on reddit.com