I think what Canon does with the R5 is logical.
I fail to see the logic. As a non-video user I really have a hard time understanding why Canon only makes 1 version of R5 and puts their ultimate video specs into it, and at the same time launches C300 III and neither it nor C500 II (FF) at significantly higher prices comes with 8k video specs. Why would anyone buy those C cameras now?
Logic to me would have been multiple versions of a new R camera, all using same body shell. Akin to original Sony A7/S/R product strategy.
e.g.
1. R5C - video-optimized version (similar to what 1DC was) with currently announced 8k hi-end video specs, 4999 MSRP [which would still leave my question re positioning vs. C300/C500 line]
2. R5 - hybrid, "straightforward mirrorfree 5D V", 45+ MP, decent 4k video specs, 3499 MSRP
3. R5R - pure stills "hi-rez" version, 5DS successor, 80 MP, no video recording (only internal EVF feed, no extra cooling, no ), no audio (mics, amps, speakers, codecs), 3499 MSRP
4. R5E - pure stills "economic" version, 45 MP, no video/audio recording; € 2499 MSRP
Maximum production efficiency, optimal choice for customers. It would also nicely demonstrate how few hybrid/video users really are willing to put their wallet where their demands are.