Would you want an APS-C camera with an RF mount?

If anything is bizarre rantings, they are coming from you.  Maybe come back with an actual contribution.

BirdShooter7 wrote:

You are making the same mistake Olympus makes. Having the equivalent FOV of a 600mm lens does zero for me (and pretty much all the bird photographers I know). If that’s the only benefit I would just go with a FF camera and the 150-600 that I already have. What we want is the 600mm lens with the pixel density of the 90d, or maybe even more, without all the extra pixels of FF that we are cropping away anyway.

Not a mistake. Photography is about compromises and balance and meeting one's need. I have argued the case for having no RF-S, of having RF-S, of sunsetting the M line and keeping the M line. Why? Cause different people have different needs. 
And just as you mention FOV and DOF blah blah blah might matter to some and not to others. I consider myself a generalist when it comes to photography. I dabble in a lot of it. But end of the day my main muse and target is my little princess. I got into photography because of her. But I decided it was silly to spend all this money and time in something and not expand on it. So birding... would like to, sports, landscape, macro etc. 
For portraiture DOF is important, hence why I have FF. But I have a family and a kid which means my monetary priorities doesn't have me spending money like crazy on gear. I also don't have the time to spend on photography all the time. For that reason system consolidation is better for me than having multiple mounts. So having a crop body and long lenses for birding or wildlife that I might do 1-2 times in a year seems like a waste. So a high MP body that allows for cropping for when I do that... fine. But it would have to be faster than 5 fps. 
For you where it seems like birding is the main thing... then yes your point is clear and I don't disagree. Its just that people get fixated on their need and don't consider those of others. Hence why I am for OPTIONS. You know way way better than me what is good for you. 
Personally... I think an EF-M, RF (RF and RF-S) line is what canon should aim for. EF-M for those who will never go the upgrade path, and focus on cost, weight and size, and the RF and RF-S way for those who are more into photography where we can benefit on having both crop and FF with 1 consolidated mount. I would consider RF-S (for mounting FF small primes, and perhaps 1-2 RF-S longer lenses which would be smaller and cheaper probably than FF RF lenses)... but probably never EF-M.

You obviously don’t understand the issue, my guess is that you don’t do much bird/wildlife photography.

jwilliams wrote: I do think the M mount should just die instead of languishing for years until its eminent demise.

In terms of unit sales, it's RP that's languishing. The M50 is Canon's best selling mirrorless camera.

Nigge wrote:

RP doesn’t have the resolution needed by the APS-C shooters. But that will be addressed with the 82MP, >8FPS, FF that Canon sooner or later brings out.

For the likely price difference between the current EOS R and the putative 82MP future addition to range you could have a fairly versatile EOS M100 based outfit or an EOS M6II plus adapter now.

By all means buy a very high definition camera if that's what you need, but it's more expensive and less versatile than running EOS M alongside EOS R if you just want it for the APS-C crop.

BirdShooter7 wrote:

You obviously don’t understand the issue, my guess is that you don’t do much bird/wildlife photography.

You are right. and I said as much. It is something I do when convenient. But I don't go out with birding in mind. I shoot birds when I come across them while doing other kinds of photography. If i were to put a portfolio together I would guess that not a single bird ends up in it. 
But I have always been interested. Hence why I am talking about it cause I learn from the comments from others. 
So perhaps you can state clearly what the issue is.

BirdShooter7 wrote:

How is RF-s even necessary at all? The reason for EF-s was the mirror. That is gone so if there is a lens with reduced image circle the chip in the lens can simply indicate that to the camera to force crop mode when the lens is mounted on a FF camera. I really don’t see any benefit from all these different lens mounts other than to get customers to buy more stuff

It isn't. That is a misunderstanding. 
It would all be RF mount. But you would still have to specify on the lens if it is for a crop sensor or FF. and the same goes on the camera. That is why I have been placing RF-S in parenthesis.

Nigge wrote:

Sittatunga wrote:

Nigge wrote:

RP doesn’t have the resolution needed by the APS-C shooters. But that will be addressed with the 82MP, >8FPS, FF that Canon sooner or later brings out.

For the likely price difference between the current EOS R and the putative 82MP future addition to range you could have a fairly versatile EOS M100 based outfit or an EOS M6II plus adapter now.

By all means buy a very high definition camera if that's what you need, but it's more expensive and less versatile than running EOS M alongside EOS R if you just want it for the APS-C crop.

I think they should make one R APS-C model targeting 7d2 shooters for cost reason compared to 82MP FF.
My guess is also that they will do it.

^ Exactly.

I already have, honestly, if you haven’t gotten it by now I don’t feel like wasting my time to explain it any more.  This isn’t your bag by your own admission so why bother?