Is EF-M mount worth investing for a new user

jackwelch wrote:

Maxmolly7 wrote:

1" sensors are quite good in decent light. Higher ISO can be cleaned with Topaz tools.

The G3X is small and light 24 to 600mm without changing lenses, but 1 frame per second in RAW is killing it's usefulness.

The next best but expensive thing is Sony's RX10IV. It is far better than APS-C with Tamron 18-400 and it holds up well against EF 100-400mm IS mk1 on M6 mk1.

The 100-400mm IS alone is heavier than the RX10IV.

I have no comparison vs. M6II yet.

The proposed M100 is okay for general travel photography but not for wildlife.

I totally agree with a lot of your viewpoints and also the previous posters but none of these are in the ball park of $400 - its totally an unfair comparison. Of course the M3 will be inferior but for those starting out and don't want to spend too much, the M3 is fantastic bargain (if you still can find one new that is).

To sum up my point - consider the M3 but only if you can get a great price, because if lets say the M6, the M50 or the RX10iv (or anything better than the M3) is within the same price bracket (eg or within a $100 margin), then by all means go for that cause it is definitely better.

The question here is this, can you match the price point of the M-system for a system like below? In all honesty, i really think for $400 you're paying for the lenses and the M3 is like a freebie here.

But for $400 you're getting a new M3, plus EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM and EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM lenses. Now lets look to ebay for new prices on these lenses:

EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM

M3 Body only (I tried to find new but can only find pre-owned prices on ebay)

Is the entire $400 M3 kit you are looking at all "new"?  You hadn't mentioned that in your original post and I think we all assumed everything was used given the age of the M3.