Agreed with the first paragraph. If it's basically an R5 with a crop sensor but higher pixel density and better AF, I would consider buying it even at close to the R5 price. I wouldn't mind if the crippled the video features, either.Actually, it is exactly what is necessary for a camera of this type. An R7 would be a specialist camera aimed at bird and wildlife photographers who simply can never get enough pixels on target. There will always be a tradeoff with high pixel density, but most buyers understand that and the tradeoffs are shrinking with modern sensors. Even with the 1.6 magnification, coupled with a 1.4 converter on something like the 100-500 zoom, many users would still be cropping their images significantly because they are distance limited and some subjects (like songbirds) are small anyway.
This is not meant to substitute for the R5, R6 or R3, it is meant to be a companion body. Use the full frame in poor light and sacrifice some resolution. Use the crop R7 in good light when you need more "reach."
The second, I'm not so sure about. For several people (including me) yes, but I think quite a few people would be happy with it as their only body, if they have fairly little need for shorter focal lengths. For those needs they'd want a crop standard zoom and a crop wide-angle, something like 18-55 and 10-22.