No reason to apologize. I have to apologize.
If a 1.6x crop factor turns my RF 100-500 into a 160-800 f/7.1, then clicking my R5 into 1.6 crop mode would do the same. Or, cropping a full frame image by 1.6x in post processing would also lengthen the lens.
It would be appropriate for them to put their 1.4" sensor in a stills-oriented PowerShot. I too wonder how long it will take them to do that.
It's odd to see such a silly reply from one of the most highly respected contributors here at Canon Rumors. Because you know, without a doubt, that the R5 in crop mode is less than 18mp, and that Canon has no other FF models with more MPs. So, seriously, you want to equate 18 MP with the 32 MP of the R7?
Just think before making a comment like that as you know I do understand these matters, especially as I have discussed these things many times. Surely you can work it out for yourself that's precisely what I am getting at - the reach depends on the relative megapixels of the FF sensor and the APS-C sensor, and the f-number must be considered in equivalence terms and a f/2.8 200mm doesn't become an f/2.8 300mm. The actual relative reach of a 32 Mpx R7 is 1.4x that of the 45 Mpx R5 (under optimal conditions), not 1.6x, and that of a 24 Mpx sensor APS-C only 1.17x! So, a cropped R5 or R5ii is pretty close in reach to the R10, R50 etc. What I am trying to do is to get people to think about it and work out for themselves what is going on. Too many people confuse field of view with reach.
That's a pretty fascinating take, especially given that the 6-3 is getting a 30+% increase in resolution (which is roughly the same percentage of a jump the 20D took over the 10D), and improved AF over its predecessor - two of the three items you say made the 20D an upgrade over the 10D. This probably isn't the thread for it, but I'm curious to know why you think that it's a big zero as far as improvements go.
With a 1.62x crop, you generally gain a stop more depth of field. So your 70-200/f2.8 becomes a relative 100-300/f4, not a 100-300/f2.8 (although that what the camera will record in its exif files).
If you consider three things: (1) field of view, (2) depth of field and (3) exposure, it's possible to construct a definition of "equivalence" by holding two of them constant while allowing the third to change. Most people, including me, hold the FOV and exposure constant while allowing the DOF to change. Others hold the FOV and DOF constant while allowing the exposure to change (F/2.8 is F/2.8 regardless of the size of the sensor.) And most people don't consider that cropping an image changes the FOV but holds the DOF and exposure constant.
While entirely correct, and something I have certainly done with my R5ii, the key difference that that using the R5/R5ii in 1.6 crop mode results in an image with far less pixels on the subject that using the same lenses with an APS-C body with around 30M MP. For smaller subjects in the frame the APS-C option either gives you either more detail or additional ability to crop without loosing too many pixels in the final image vs a FF in 1.6 crop mode.
Of course dedicated top of the line APSC body will always be able provide more details/reach than high MP Full frame bodies but at some point you will be able with a single body to do both wildlife + others.
