You misunderstand me.
YES, by ALL MEANS sell two if you can affordably engineer and market two.
But is Canon releasing two cameras?
No. In fact the rumor mill says after the R3 the next TWO cameras will be cheap models, if I recall correctly.
So they're not "selling two," they're selling one and leaving the other market (slow/hi-IQ) unserved. (Well, we DO have the R5, which is awesome; I was just hoping to move from R to R3, but maybe I have to do R to R5 to R1???)
Now I'd agree with you that having two market segments, and serving one now, and the other at least 3 cameras later, if that is their strategy, MIGHT be more profitable than my proposal of a slow/hi-MP camera tweaked so it can also produce lo-MP images as quickly as a lo-MP camera could. But maybe its not.
I've worked six years of my career in Japanese firms in Japan in Japanese, and while everyone here seems to think they're geniuses at making these decisions, the way it works is there will be a group with some rough consensus but where most group members are afraid to push their opinion much at all, a senior person will tweak that consensus, and at that point NOBODY CAN QUESTION IT. It is FINAL. You see that constantly. The Fukushima reactor decided to move the backup generators up to the hilltop to keep them safe from tsunami. Smart move! But the extension cords weren't available. So did they delay moving the generator? OMG NO, it was a FINAL DECISION THAT IT BE MOVED so they moved it despite literally every person in the reactor knowing that it would leave them with no power if the main generator stopped. So then later they were flying in supplies to the villages cut off by the radiation zones. A helicopter is hovering literally 1 meter off the ground while the ground crew is yelling at him that the airport is closed, therefore he cannot land, and that decision is FINAL and cannot be changed even to get drinking water to thirsty residents. Go back to the Tokaimura Incident, where the entire reactor staff knew certain steps involved mixing plutonium by hand in a god damned bucket. I am not kidding. Staff in a hurry tried to do a double-batch and pop went the weasel. The bucket part wasn't part of the decided procedure, but the decided procedure was basically missing a step and you couldn't make the reactor run without improvising that step. But the decision on the procedure was final, even though it was known to be dangerous.
I've also worked in Swiss companies in German and Canadian companies in English. Big companies aren't totally freewheeling and open to alternate opinions even in the West, but they're far more open than in Japan. Anyway, YES, Canon surely has some kind of plan, and you guys seem to think it must therefore be a great plan. But I know how these plans are cooked up and I don't share your confidence.
> this camera will be probably be a very nice solution with better high ISO
I mentioned elsewhere but my theory is that down-sampling a hi-MP camera, especially a back-side sensor, down to a lo-MP sensor's resolution, will give you approximately the same noise as that lo-MP sensor.