There are some advantages of the current implementations of global shutter eg flash sync and outright speed but very specialist niches.
Good point but again advantage at a cost.
Smaller pixels used to mean poorer performance but seems not to be the case anymore. The R5's DR/high ISO performance is a good example.
Smaller pixels still mean poorer performance.
Sensor and processing technology has been improved to the level which has made possible shrinking pixels to an extent which provides very good image quality and wider usability with higher spatial resolution sampling. This is what we have now with 50-60 Mp full frame and 26 Mp APS-C cameras.
Laws of physics haven't changed and larger bucket still holds more then a smaller one, still has superior threshold for keeping the least and still has superior content handling qualities. Principles stay the same.
Marketing and propaganda have had their effect to mass mind though.
I have analysed R3 and R5C and R3 advantage is obvious in multiple parameters. Not something which studio flash photographer with fully controlled lighting should stress over but definitely there and definitely making a difference in other usage scenarios.
I provided 3 options with the global shutter being the most likely. I also mentioned that 30mp would suit some users who don't like 24mp and think 45mp is too much.
The R5ii has 14bit raw images at 30fps. 80mp would be ~roughly 14fps top speed which is still a good speed.
80Mp on FF would limit max aperture due to diffraction, more limiting usability of this resolution, while having 3.2 micron pixel pitch.
R5 is 4.39 microns , R3 & R1 6 microns.
3 micron pixel pitch is in the range of consumer 1" (S16) cameras, under the 3.76 pixel pitch from 26Mp APS-C cameras and not far above phone sensor cameras and would be more limiting for overall image performance.
The key advantage of full frame and larger formats in digital was overall image quality due to larger pixels and this trend of shrinking pixels removes this advantage having only higher resolution with questionable usability (lens, diffraction, low light).
Feel free to describe what features would be removed for a R3ii to still maintain a market niche in a post R5ii/R1 world.
I'm assuming few niche autofocus features most people don't need, like sports predictive "action priority", few advanced AF controls and that sensor/camera on the back.
R3II makes superior performance accessible to wider market, R1 keeps catering its niche with extra features, both focusing on 24Mp, overall IQ and speed priorities. R6II successor gets the speed of R3. R3II gets the speed and sensor of R1. I'm hoping EVF as well.
