Disappointed with the fate of the EOS M line

Kharan wrote:

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

Not as much as you might think.  While the members of this forum are quite vocal and the M50/M50 II were best-selling models, the M system as a whole never had a large user base.  One year of Canon's peak DSLR sales basically equal the entire history of M sales.

The types of users buying into the M system are also important to consider.  Entry level users, as a whole, often buy a single dedicated camera, then give up on the concept and go back to their smartphone.  Many of them probably could not even tell you what brand of interchangeable lens camera they stuffed in the back of a closet years ago.  The M100, M200, M50, and M50 II sold heavily to this group.  At the other end were people who bought into the M system as an accessory to their larger DSLR's, and then later, their larger RF bodies.  While this group might lament the loss of a small body like the M6 II, the compatibility of RF-S with their larger RF gear offers distinct advantages. It is really only the relatively small middle group of advanced users where the M system is their only/primary system who are suffering the most by this change.

(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.

I don't think Fuji's market share has changed dramatically in the last few years.  Any M users moving to Fuji are mostly coming from that small middle group I mentioned above.  RF users will just add RF-S.  M200 users will just go back to their smartphone.

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.

Nikon 1 and Canon M shared the same fatal flaw.  Both systems were conceived as an accessory to a DSLR and smallest possible size was the sole design directive.  At the time, neither Nikon or Canon saw mirrorless as a full on replacement for DSLRs.  To be fair, Sony also made the same mistake, but the E mount was just barely large enough to fit a full frame sensor which allowed Sony to pivot while still keeping the same mount.  If the manufacturers knew where mirrorless technology would end up, and how inexpensive full frame sensor would become, many (most?) would have made different design choices for their new mounts.