Now we see through a glass, darkly...
- Apr 5, 2016
The R, RP and reportadly R5 and R6 all have 1.6X crop modes built in. The 5Ds has both 1.6X and 1.3X crop modes. When cropped, the 20MP R6 sensor has about 7.8MP, which arguably isn't "enough" while the 45MP R5 has about 17.6MP which is about what the 7D had and less than the 7D2. There is also the question of whether having everything in one body is a good idea or having two more specialized bodies for about the same amount of money or maybe slightly more is preferable.
Well, there seems from reading here, a consensus that this new R7 would share the same "large" body of the R5/R6, with same large R mount...so, I"m guessing maybe this new camera wouldn't be any smaller....
So, again, if this is the case, why not just enable a "crop mode" on the R5 and then have the best of all worlds...FF and crop?
Most 7D Mark II owners I know also have a FF body or a second APS-C body. They use both, often at the same time. The 7D Mark II is used mostly as a "long" sports body so that they can use a 70-200/2.8 to get the same reach as a much more expensive 300/2.8 under artificial lighting. They'll often use the FF or other APS-C body at the same time with a "short" or "wide" lens on it for when the action moves closer. The "long" body gets the lion's share of the work and takes the lion's share of the wear and tear. On Friday nights I tend to shoot a couple of thousand frames with my "long" body and maybe a couple of hundred with the "wide" body, and half of those or more are probably of the band at halftime or from in the middle of the band in the stands.
The 80D, for example, was a much better "general purpose" camera than the 7D Mark II is. But the 7D Mark II was a better "sports" body. I know guys who used both. When shooting sports they used the 7DII as their "long" body and their 80D as their "wide" body. It was fast enough for the occasional close action sideline shots and wider angle non-action shots of other things going on in the venue. Apart from sports they used the 80D for their portrait, landscape, etc. type of work.
One FF body + one 7D Mark II and a 70-200/2.8 is a lot cheaper than two FF bodies plus a $6,000 lens one doesn't need if the APS-C body has high enough pixel density.
For wildlife shooters it's all about speed and pixels on subject, as well as durability. Cost, not so much since they're already going well past the 70-200/2.8 price threshold that jumps rapidly to $6,000+ for lenses longer than 300mm with fast apertures. But any body that meets the needs of the budget sports/action shooter also meets the needs of the "need more reach" crowd if the pixel density is also there.