If all you ever do is shoot video, then why not shoot with a dedicated video camera that actually has the features and functionality that you require?
This is the thing that I'm always mystified about. I can't tell you how many guys I see running around *demanding* a hybrid camera, because, you know, they have to be able shoot both video and stills with one camera, but when you look at the actual shutter count on the camera after a year or so, they basically never shot stills with it at all. But complain about how terrible of a camera it is for video. Uh... OK... surely you're better served by a tool that is designed to work the way you *actually use it*. Canon does actually make those tools, and yes, they are very good.
Hmm, this is usually something that people who don't take video say.
Hybrid Mirrorless Cameras offer many features that video cameras don't offer, in a small and easy to use body. This is essential for one man crews
1)Full Frame for low light
2)World Class AF (solo means no focus puller)
3)IBIS(many places don't allow gimbals)
4)The ability to shoot stills for thumbnails etc
5)The option for HQ stills for the occasional photoshoot.
6)Small Form Factor means I don't stand out.
The R6 has everything I want except for two things: good DR compared to other cameras and dual slot video recording.
I use an A7SIII at work, consideree to be the pinnacle of Hybrid Video Based cams which does have those features, but it also has the drawbacks of poor IBIS, mediocre colors, and soft, mushy 4K vs the oversampled 4K from the R6. I tried using it for stills and while
It does get the job done, it would be nice to have some more cropping room.
Canon also marketed the R6 as a video focused hybrid. What is wrong with wanting to use it as that?