Sell the R5 and get an R7 and R? Crazy?

Hi all! A bit about me because I feel the background is useful for advice/input.

I shoot two things: wildlife opportunistically (often small birds) and landscapes. I'm a daily shooter or there abouts and frequently go at sunrise. I have an R5, RF 100-500, EF 300 f/2.8 mk II, rf 35mm f/1.8, and RF 14-35 f/4, along with RF and EF 1.4x TCs. For my bird photography, I find myself always using crop mode on the R5 and also wishing for more subject differentiation and nicer blurred backgrounds. I tend to feather the shutter rather than punch it for wildlife.For landscapes, I have zero complaints with the R5. Budget is a bit of a challenge, so adding cost is not a good idea. Rather, adjusting kit is how I'm thinking about things.

So, here's the question: has anyone considered selling their R5 (~$3k or a bit more with transferable warranty) and buying two bodies: a R7 for wildlife and R for landscapes. The combined cost is more than $1000 less than the R5 and I'm interested. I have an R7 on order to try as well before choosing, so rest assured I'm not one to buy based solely on internet guidance but I think it's an interesting proposition.

When I think about this, I consider what the combined package of the R7 offers compared to R5 for wildlife/landscape use:

Combo pros wildlife:

-60% more reach or almost double the pixels on subject depending on how you think about it...this makes the R7 + 300 f/2.8 and really interesting wildlife combo especially when combined with the 1.4x TC mk iii for extra reach

- 15 fps mechanical (consider the electronic somewhat unusable bc of rolling shutter) and 15 fps is sufficient for most applications in the field

-precapture seems kind of useful though implementation is not great as per Duade Paton review

Combo cons wildlife:

- that rather loud shutter

- that crappy buffer...only enough for about a second of continuous shooting in RAW; more in CRAW. How often do I shoot a second continuously? Almost never. Maybe I should be though...

- bit more noise however seems that dxo deals with r7 noise well (downloaded some samples and processed and it doesn't feel very different from R5 to be honest)

- lose 4k 120fps video option and instead only full HD. I think this is kind of a wash though because of crop factor

- rolling shutter make silent action shots near impossible

Combo pros landscape:

- zero, unless we call having two bodies as asset

Combo cons landscape:

- drop from 45 to 30 mp resolution

- 1 stop less DR (this is not ideal)

- no IBIS...not sure how valuable this really is for landscape though. I don't really handhold long exposures as is on the R5

Overall:

Price: EOS R refurbished by canon is $900 and new R7 is $1500, so $2400 pre-tax. R5 can be sold for more than that, say $3k to be conservative. So it's certainly cost neutral.

Summary gains: 50% more pixels on subject for wildlife; small fps gain; two purpose specific cameras. Admittedly, I am drawn to the R7 by the potential combo with the 100-500 and the 300mm f/2.8. I think the 300mm f/2.8 is the best wildlife lens for low light that you can handhold at the cost of being too short on full frame, but on a crop...

Summary cons: less dynamic range for landscape and less resolution (this is a concern); some stress about R7 buffer challenges (will be resolved through testing); loss of electronic shutter for wildlife use.

Looking forward to your thoughts and maybe alternative ideas. Here are some of my shots for context of wildlife and landscape.