I feel exactly opposite to what you said. It is actually Canon which has a mismatch in its line up. Pro lenses and basic bodies. Nikon is consistent in its prosumer offering and it is good enough to be used by many professionals in their line of work.
The people using Canon R system are only Canon users who added one to their existing Canon kit. However there are several on this forum whom nikon was successful in converting (myself included, but I am an enthusiast).
Sony and Panasonic lovers. Panasonic has a huge advantage, in that they have the support and participation of Leica and Sigma in the L mount Alliance.
Not true. Panasonic had to join an alliance because they are not a big player, however even the alliance is still smaller than Canon/Nikon individual eco system. How many lenses are available for L system, and at what price?
Sony has a huge head start over all the others. Those two facts will mean that Nikon and Canon will be playing catch up for a long, long time, if they do what I think they're doing . . . sitting back, and watching how people react to their pathetic entry into the full-frame mirrorless market (so far).
Have you actually used Z cameras? If you have, then I am really amazed at your expectations. If you haven't, then you are just echoing internet chatter.
Both Z's are very competent camera, as evidenced by many professionals and enthusiasts using it here. I used A7R III since 12-2017 exclusively, and had dual systems all spring and summer. I have now sold my RIII. It wasn't a bad camera, but Z is better in many respects (including lens selection and lens prices).
Even Canon R system can not be called pathetic. For certain type of shooting it is vert competent.
Let me explain what I mean by a pethetic entry into the full-frame mirrorless market. Nikon produced two cameras - one with more resolution and features than the other. That's great. I commend them for doing so . . . but we have still to see a third camera from them. We also have seen very little in the way of lenses from them. Sure, they're adding f1.8 primes regularly, but that's about it. We have seven lenses available from Nikon that are native mount lenses now . . . a YEAR after they introduced the cameras and just three lenses. Canon did worse. On launch they just sold ONE camera. How pathetic is THAT? It's as if they think mirrorless might be a fad or something. It's what one would expect from a group of old men who prefer to use DSLR cameras themselves. It's really sad, and it's a testament to the fact that Canon isn't taking mirrorless seriously, but instead they're offering "a few products for those silly young people who want that kind of thing." (The quote is not something someone from Canon said, but something I'm saying in a way that I think the people at Canon must be thinking.)
A REAL launch of a product line would have included three new cameras (maybe five), and at least half-a-dozen new lenses, including a macro, a wide-angle zoom, normal zoom, a long zoom, and two primes (ten new lenses would have been a REALLY serious launch, including three wide-aperture primes, two macros, two choices of normal zoom, such as an f2.8 and a budget zoom with a range of f3.5-5.6, and a super-zoom, such as a 28-300mm f3.5-5.6, as well as the long zoom, such as a 70-300mm f4-5.6, and wide-angle zoom, such as a 14-24mm f4 or f2.8). Granted, I don't think anyone has made a launch into any camera market with ten lenses, and even six lenses would be a lot, but Sigma is nowhere near as big as Canon, and there have been shows where they introduced three new lenses, so why can't Canon introduce twice as many, when they're launching their new full-frame mirrorless line? Why can't Canon introduce two or three new cameras too? The fact is they could have done so, but chose not to, and that shows their level of commitment to the new system. The fact that Panasonic made a bigger launch into full-frame mirrorless than Canon shows us something . . . that Canon is either not that serious about mirrorless, or that they are in a mode of wait and see . . . or that they have some strategy to sell off their DSLR cameras and lenses before they show that they really are serious about full-frame mirrorless. The fact is though that Canon's DSLR line is getting old, as are the lenses in that line. There has been very little new product from Canon in the past couple of years, since they made the 5D Mk IV and 7D Mk II. Yes, they just made the 90 D, but where is the 1DX Mk III? The 1Dx Mk II was released more than three years ago. I guess they plan to make a 1Dx Mk III in 2020, for the Olympics, but I bet that could be Canon's last DSLR . . . if their mirrorless cameras work well, and people buy them. I also think the 90 D is one of their last DSLR cameras. I'm thinking there will never be another 7 D, and I think they've ended their line of Rebel cameras, replacing it with the EOS M line (M3, M5, M6, M50, and M100).
Look at what Panasonic has done so far in the full-frame mirrorless market. Three new cameras in the first year is at least better than what Canon and Nikon have done. Sure, they're all based on the same body, but Canon and Nikon could have each made two cameras based on the same body too - one with more speed and a tilt screen, and one with less speed and no tilt screen. They could have even put different sensors in them, like Panasonic did.
I do like what Canon has done with the RP though, differentiating it to a great degree, and making it very affordable. Ultimately Canon and Nikon seem to think they can rely on their established line of lenses though, rather than making a big launch with a lot of new lenses and cameras. That's obviously their strategy, but I think it's a short-sighted strategy, which shows people that Sony is more serious about what they're doing in the full-frame mirrorless world, because when Sony started, they didn't just rely on their old lenses with an adapter, and sit back, waiting for people to react. I think Sony was serious from the start, with a lot of new lenses and cameras. They too made three cameras in the first year, with two cameras at launch: the A7 and A7r, followed quickly by the A6000 and then the A7s came along about a year later.
I have to admit that Sony was making their APS-C cameras already, so in a way their new system wasn't new at all, because it used the same mount as the NEX series of cameras. With Nikon and Canon it is a different story, and with Canon there is a split, with the R mount and the M mount, so I guess Canon can be forgiven for introducing just one full-frame, R-mount camera on launch. I still think Nikon's launch of just two cameras is a bit short. Maybe the word "pathetic" is a bit strong, but the cameras they launched really are a bit of a minimum, and I was disappointed that they didn't make something bigger and better in the beginning. What I was hoping for, after years of waiting for them to get into the mirrorless market in a serious way, was a big launch, with a camera that blows away the competition (including Sony). I mean why else would Nikon wait so long? Why else would Canon wait so long? Well, Canon didn't really wait so long. They made the M mount years ago, but it was not what I would expect Canon to produce, and that M mount system didn't seem like Canon was serious about mirrorless. It's now obvious that Canon was just sort of testing the waters of the mirrorless world, and now they have launched their more serious R mount . . . with one camera, followed by a second. It's not obvious that they're planning to compete heavily with Sony though, and that's how I see Nikon's entry into full-frame mirrorless too. That's what makes me think neither of them are taking the full-frame mirrorless market seriously, and that is why I used the word "pathetic" to describe their launches into the full-frame mirrorless market.
Again, it's as if Canon and Nikon are run by old men, who don't see the seriousness of their situation. They're losing customers to Sony . . . and now Panasonic . . . and it seems like they just don't care.
EDIT: A moderator has told me that this post has crossed the line into "bashing" . . . and it is not my intent to bash Nikon. I only wanted to explain why I used the word "pathetic" to describe their launch into the full-frame mirrorless market. I like Nikon as a company, and I see they're trying. I just don't know why they didn't make a bigger splash. I speculate - as do most of us. That's all. I don't have some inside information about Nikon and the people who run the company. I guess I was disappointed, and when I started describing my feelings and thoughts about their launch, I might have gone overboard with my speculation, and if so, I apologize. I don't have any intent to bash anyone or anything - just to explain my thinking.
--
Scott Barton Kennelly
https://www.bigprintphotos.com/
