Is EF-M mount worth investing for a new user

nnowak wrote:

jackwelch wrote:

nnowak wrote:

Neither of those two lenses will match the 600mm equivalence of the OP's current camera.

Full frame 400mm lens on an apcs should be equivalent to 600mm due to the crop factor. I see many taking this route of adapting full frame lenses on smaller size sensors like apsc or M43 for that added reach instead of using their native lenses.

In fact it's often been said the best teleconverters are full frame lenses on smaller sized sensors.

Yes, 400mm on APS-C will get you to 600mm equivalent. KEG's suggestion of using a 250mm or 300mm lens falls quite short.

1. the trouble with M3 is probably the AF system, not the sensor, the sensor is capable of great results at ISO 100 and all the way to about 1600, of course that never stops me to go to 6400.
2. It is possible to use the 250 lens with kenko teleconverter, same teleconverter also works with 70-300.
3. the 15 mp image might look nicer than the 20 MP one from G3 X due to sharper lens.

You are right about the popularity of 100-400mm zooms on crop. Canon is likely going to sell boatloads of RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 lenses to new R10 and R7 owners.

Speaking of which... If you wanted to sell your FZ2500 and G3X and then pool those funds with the $400 you would have spent on the M3 kit, you would easily have enough to buy the $1379 R10 kit with the 18-150mm zoom. Add the $599 RF 100-400mm to the package and then you would have a 2 lens setup that rivals the range of your G3X, but with noticeably better performance in all regards.

APS-C can be much better than 1", but it depends on which APS-C and which lenses. Bigger is not automatically better. Depending on the camera/lens combination, a smartphone can even beat APS-C.