Disappointed with the fate of the EOS M line

nnowak wrote:

KoolKool wrote:

in business perpective, Nikon 1 and Canon M are the most expensive mistake in camera industry

Not likely. Cameras like the M50 sold more than well enough for Canon easily recoup all of the M system development costs.

Nikon 1 might be a different story.

The problems here are the loss of consumer confidence, as well as the opportunity costs, incurred by Canon. It’s obvious, from reading this thread, that many EOS M users are very displeased at Canon for the end result of their dumb decisions (jumping into mirrorless late, with an obviously born-to-be-an-orphan mount, creating gimped products for it, and always treating it like the red headed stepchild). The damage will be difficult to quantify, but Fujifilm’s success should be a good indicator of the viability of the enthusiast APS market. Their user base is largely composed of “renegade” crop aficionados from other systems, and one of the main user donors (if not THE main one) has been Canon.

All of Canon’s stupid decisions regarding EOS M have already exacted a toll, and will continue to do so. With that said, they finally did one thing right with the unification of everything under RF (the cinema cameras are coming any day now). This should reduce user anxiety a little, since RF will be Canon’s single focus for at least a decade, and probably for a lot longer.

Nikon 1 did definitely do worse, but it didn’t need to. It was more viable in the long term, because it could occupy a niche that no other system could. What Nikon didn’t do with was a real shame.