Love the R6!

But RM 12k for 20MP leh, EOS RP has 26MP!

Damn, that's true. Wish you the best in your photography ventures.
I think before you overheat at 30mins, the card will be out of space for 8k recording. I heard 8K recording for 128GB card is <10 minutes. 1TB CFExpress might get you to 30+ mins.

I also assume the R6 will be more popular as well. at least on the stills front, it's pretty identical. Really looking forward to the AF reviews especially with those f/11s
You seem to hold the 5DIII very closely. Thought that would be sold instead.

I see. I got this lens. Very sharp. Just focus maybe not fast enough compared to RF L lens.
I would prefer something wider, maybe the 24mm.

If you already have 35mm 1.4 sigma, then I would get the 24mm lens.

Oh I see. The reasons why I brought this up again was that I wanted to suggest you to either go for the 24-70 f2.8, 28-70 f2 or the latest 24-105 f2.8 to pair with the R5 instead of 24-105 F4. This is my opinion la, you don't have to agree with me. But for me, as a long time APSC user, one of the main reasons to come to FF is to get something that cannot be accomplished by apsc.

24-105 F4 full frame is equivalent to apsc as the 16-70 F2.8. I know the exact duplicate of this focal length + the 2.8 aperture doesn't exists yet, but there are very close ones, such as Sigma 18-50 f2.8, Sony 16-55 f2.8, Tamron 17-70 f2.8. I know all these lenses that I've mentioned doesn't exist for RF mount yet. But my point is, if  you going to spend so much money on the R5 body, yet getting results that can be accomplished by apsc with much lower cost,  why don't you step down to Sony apsc and pick one of those cheaper apsc lenses ? Just the R5 body price alone has enough dough to tapao any sony apsc body + anyone of the afore mentioned apsc lenses.

And don't forget that a f2.8 lens is a f2.8 lens, be it apsc, FF or MFT format. So, an f2.8 zoom will gather more light and lower the iso or allow a higher shutter speed setting than a F4 lens on a full frame body. It is true that full frame performs better than a apsc with higher iso setting. But what's the point of paying more money for full frame when you can get similar result with cheaper gear?

Again, I have  to emphasize, this is my opinion, because I really really don't like F4 zoom. It drive me even more nut when i see people pairing F4 zoom on a Full frame body to save money. If that's the case, why don't they just go for f2.8 zoom on apsc ? right ?

Interesting, didn't notice this.

I've tested both RF 24 and 35, they are both similarly built.

In the end I didn't buy the 24, I have the RF 35 and RF 16.

Basically RF 24 and RF 35 are solid, while RF 16 and RF 50 feels quite weak.