I think you are not interpreting the commentary correctly. Those of us who question the likelihood of an R7 are simply looking at the data.
Are you? What data are you looking at, because I am not aware that Canon has published their sales and marketing data.
There has been no actual mention of an APS-c R body of any kind from Canon other than super 35 Cine cams and ALL the specifications that have been floated have originated with CR Guy (likely directly from his imagination).
Canon never mentions products until they are prepared to announce them. It would be uncharacteristic of Canon to declare that they intend to release any product until they are ready to either announce it formally or make a development announcement. The success of this site, under both CR Guy and the current owners, requires that they publish credible rumors and confirm them through reliable sources. Certainly not everything on this site comes to fruition, but they seem pretty definitive that an R7 is coming. This site's track record is really quite good. What's your track record?
There is no doubt that there is a group of folks looking for another bargain like the 7D2, but current camera economics suggest that to be unlikely.
There are wide variations of the price predictions of forum members. Many are full of wishful thinking. But not all. Most seem realistic in anticipating the price.
Clearly, the wish is for an APS-c camera with a feature set similar to an R5 with a little R3 tossed in for good measure. In realistic terms, that is a $3500 camera and at that price, it simply would not sell enough copies for it to make sense.
My read is that many of those hoping for an R7 expect it have a feature set and price in line with the R6, which is a $2,500 camera. (The R5 is actually a $3,900 camera today.) Also, what data do you have that sets an upper limit on what an R7 might sell for. Canon seems to have no problem selling cameras for whatever price they set.
There is also the issue that ANY release of an APS-c R model would signal the death of M, and Canon are not going to do that unless and until they decide to kill M and have a viable alternative plan ready to roll out.
Why would the release of an R7 jeopardize the future of the M system? The M is geared toward those who want a small and light system for travel and general purpose use. An R7 is a specialist body for those who want additional "reach" for birding, wildlife and sports. Even if an R7 would jeopardize the M system, why would Canon refuse to produce a more expensive product that displaces a less expensive product?
The bottom line is that from a business perspective, such a camera is a much bigger decision than simply making another model to satisfy a relatively small group of potential customers.
I don't think it is. There is a niche market for the camera and Canon appears to believe it is worth the investment to fulfill that niche. Camera bodies are not a zero-sum game. Introducing an R7 doesn't preclude introducing other bodies.
An R5s solves the technical requirement of more pixels on the bird and given an APS-c Raw mode, it also solves the file size issue. All that remains is the price point and $5k vs the realistic $3.5k for the R7 is not that big a difference for folks who are mostly shooting with a Big White of some flavor.
That's a lot to unpack. I'd like to see your market and technical data. Where is this R5s that you are touting? I don't see that in Canon's lineup. Are you choosing to believe the rumors of a high megapixel R5s but refusing to believe the rumors of an R7? Sounds like confirmation bias to me. An APS-C sensor is always going to move data more quickly than a full frame sensor of the same pixel density because it has less data to move. Let's compare apples to apples – a C-Raw file on a crop sensor body is always going to be a smaller file size than a C-Raw file on full frame. Where is your market data that says the $5,000 price point will generate as many sales as a $3,500 or more likely $2,500 price point, especially when the R7 target audience will never use all those extra pixels and shoot exclusively in crop mode. Where is your market data that says most of the potential buyers are shooting Big Whites? Many of those commenting on this site view an R7 as an alternative to a Big White, which they find too expensive and too heavy.
For reference, I have a 90D and 3 M cameras including an M6 II. I like the M cameras for their portability and the M5 is my favorite. For Birds, the R5 outperforms all of the former and is still quite capable with an 800 f/11 with a 1.4 extender. I think this suggests that an R7 with anything less than R5 performance for AF and IS would be a letdown and result in 90D like sales, but a very fast 32 MP APS-c sensor equipped with IBIS and r5 style AF processing is not going to be that much cheaper than an R5 as noted above.
The R6 has the same AF and IS as the R5, so why do you keep using the R5 as your price floor? What's wrong with 90D-like sales? Do you have access to market data that shows what those sales were and that Canon was disappointed in those sales? If the 90D was a weak seller (and we don't know if it was), might that not have more to do with the poor timing of introducing a DSLR near the end of the life cycle for all enthusiast DSLRs and to what extent did the weak autofocus on the 90D undermine its sales potential with 7D users, since the much older 7DII had a much superior autofocus?
That is the math of the situation and I think that is all any of the "naysayers" are trying to point out.
And yet, you have no math.
If Canon intend to keep M and actually decide to make an R7, then they would need to release either a new M model or at least an M lens at the same time, since Canon will never come out and say "we are committed to keeping such and such". A simultaneous release would serve the same purpose and that is the "Canon way". If they are not planning to keep M, than they need a clear alternative path for the current Rebel users. That could be an APS-c R line or simply a very low cost FF R body, but given the obsolete sensor, the RP is not that alternative.
You seem very sure that you know what Canon needs to do. Personally, I leave that up to Canon.
I don't think anyone is saying the R7 is a "bad" idea, but rather that it is a challenging business decision.
So you are saying that you know Canon's business so well that you are confident it would be a bad business decision. Again, my choice is to let Canon decide what is or isn't a good business decision.
Personally, I would rather see an R5s, but either one would be something I might well buy.
Now my head is really spinning. You are saying, "it's a bad business decision but I might buy one."
Here is my perspective: I am not vested one way or the other in an R7. The R5 and R3 meet my needs. If one materializes I will decide at that point if it is something I want. More likely I can see it as something my wife might want, as she shoots small songbirds frequently and can never get enough pixels on target. Although she does appreciate her R5 coupled with the 800mm F11. But, she might appreciate a 32mp R7 coupled with the 800mm F11 even more. And, that's really the point of the R7 isn't it? It will add more pixels on target no matter what lens you use.
What baffles me, as I said in the original post that you responded to, is that I don't understand why a handful of forum participants seem so personally offended by the idea that Canon plans to introduce an R7. If you don't want it. Don't buy it. But making up all sorts of rationales as to why Canon won't do something that it appears increasingly likely that they will do, only runs the risk of making people look like fools when the camera is released.
