I personally have a different point of view from the Canon / Nikon question. I had very few issues, regularly had good service, and didn't have to pay a membership fee to get that service.
I also look at the current mirrorless lens offerings from both and like what I see in Nikon's lineup more. Nikon already has wide primes; has more primes and; like many of there other Z lenses; are actually reasonably affordable, including an affordable wide zoom option. Canon has been able to create smaller and lighter 70-200 zooms, but at the cost of them not working with a TC. I'm not sure why that point doesn't seem to get mentioned.
And late to game? The Nikon 1 was out 10 month before the EOS M and the Z6/Z7 were announced a month before the EOS R. And Nikon's offerings seemed like more like true complements to their upper level DSLRs while the EOS R/RP seem more like EOS M upgrades. It wasn't until this year and the EOS R5/6 that the bodies really seemed like a 5D alternatives. With the Z6/7 most D750/D850 users wouldn't have a problem going from one to the other. That's a BIG difference as many pros shoot with at least 2 of the same bodies. (I did both similar and or the same bodies for events).
Yes they did not invest, market, support, etc as they really should have.
Just IMHO, YMMV
Ive certainly been pleasantly surprised by the relative affordability of the Nikon Z series lenses
Currently (UK official dealer pricing with discounts)
Z 14-30 f4.0 S £899, Z 20mm F1.8S £829, Z24mm F1.8 £764, Z35mm F1.8 S £609, Z50mm 1.8 S £409, 85mm 1.8 S £599
Z 24-200 f4-6.3 Z24-70 f4 £819
Certainly not a cheap range of lenses but most of the Z lenses are very highly rated particularly for sharpness and the 1.8 primes at least seem to represent great value
I would assume that the 20mm, 35mm, 50mm and 80mm would render a similar if not better overall image quality to the Olympus PRO primes and as such imo are more ‘affordable‘ than one might expect, similar in size with the benefit of much better noise control at high ISO
With regard to the 70-200 offerings from Nikon and Canon - current U.K. Nikon Z70-200mm f2.8 £2399 (very highly rated and rated by some as the best lens available in that range) vs Canon RF 70-200 2.8 L IS USM £2659
The Canon although smaller (when not extended for full range) is not as mentioned by
@davidzvi able to accept a TC which makes it far less versatile
Nikon Z 70-200mm 2.8 + 2.0 TC £2998, Canon 70-200 £2659 so you get 70 - 400 with Nikon for £350 extra (or 70 - 280 with the very highly rated 1.4TC for £300 extra compared to the Canon)
Im very lucky as I bought my 70-200mm f2.8 with a big discount at £1839 so I can eventually get 70-400 at £2438
I certainly agree that Nikon made some huge mistakes with their Z range including single card slot albeit that it was a more reliable XQD slot - bearing in mind that the target market was always going to include wedding photographers and other PRO users
The battery grip for the original Z6/Z7 was purely a battery grip with no provision whatsoever for additional controls attached for portrait shooting - again bearing in mind some of the target Wedding and PRO users !!!
The cameras did not have any electrical contacts designed into them for consideration of a fully functional battery grip !
I cannot for one minute fathom the decision making process for those considering that Nikon was struggling with rapidly declining sales and turnover and these particular (mirrorless models) could have been seen as being able to potentially turn around the fortunes of the company
I am sure judging by the huge number of adverse comments about the card slot, battery grip (and focussing issues) that better conceived Z6/7s would have made a much bigger dent in the losses being made by Nikon
This imo was a lost opportunity which Nikon is still recovering from by releasing the Z6 and Z7 11 which many consider have the features which should have been released in the first place (2 card slots, battery grip with additional controls and better focussing)
I personally bought my Z6 at a very good price so have no qualms about it’s features and abilities especially as firmware 3.0 improved the focussing, added eye detection and improved the triggering of the focus tracking
I was able to buy into Full Frame at ‘reasonable’ cost so am very happy with my Nikon equipment - I don’t think I would have been a happy bunny if I’d been a pre order buyer of the original Z6 or Z7 at full retail two years ago and can understand those loyal Nikon users that did so and were very disappointed
I think that the Z6/7 ii are much better products with basic features that potential users require in cameras at the relevant price points
They may not (at least yet pending potential fw upgrades) have class leading focussing (eye detection being a point which is often compared against Sony and Canon) but they like the original mk1 models have several things going for them (which I considered carefully when choosing Nikon) including very good ergonomics, very good interface, an extremely good and very large EVF (which is set back away from the surface of the rear screen for better comfort in use), very good quality dust and weather sealing, generally excellent build quality and at least in the case of the Nikon Z6 vs Canon R6 - comparable price point
Anyone considering venturing into FF would imo be wise to consider these non ‘headline‘features and qualities of the Nikon Z range rather than considering only the ‘Headline’ advantages of the Sony range which gets a fair amount of criticism for things like build quality, dust and weather resistance, EVF quality
It’s not all about ultimate focussing ability which many users will not even benefit from compared to the benefit of other qualities I have highlighted
(I do also think that the Nikon 1 series was ill conceived bearing in mind that Micro Four Thirds sized sensors were already considered by many as being too small - trying to sell a mirrorless camera system with an even smaller sensor was never imo going to be a win for Nikon with a further compromise in image quality and noise control)