Mirrorless cameras and lenses

[overthepass]

Would welcome any thoughts on the following. I currently use a DSLR (with APS-C size sensor) and 100mm macro lens. This works fine, but advancing age and decrepitude means that I’m the 1.5kg combined weight is increasingly inconvenient to lug around. So I’m looking at mirrorless options.
Although I’ve used Canon for some years, their mirrorless camera range doesn’t attract me because their offering of lenses tailored to a lightweight camera body is so limited. Using my existing EF lenses with an adapter would at least partly negate the object of the exercise weight-wise, and a heavy lens on a light camera body would feel unbalanced.
The Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mk III seems to have a lot of plus points, but the longest compatible macro lens in their range is a 60mm one, which with the four-thirds sensor they use gives a 120mm full-frame equivalent field of view. This falls a bit short of replicating the 150mm 35mm equivalent FOV I get with my present camera + macro lens, which I rather like. Apparently their teleconverters aren’t compatible with the 60mm macro, so can’t try that as an option. I gather that there is a sort of “digital zoom” function where the camera effectively crops the photo for you from the RAW image when saving the JPEG, but have no idea of how well that works in practice.
Does anyone have any other suggestions on mirrorless solutions which might enable me in effect to replicate what I’m using at present whilst carrying much less weight around?
Incidentally, from a recent look at the Canon website both of their 100mm macro lenses seem to have disappeared, as well as the 300mm f/4. It seems curious that they should be reducing their EF range without making corresponding enhancements to their mirrorless-tailored offering – any thoughts as to why this is?

[jonhd]

I've been using OM-D E-Mx cameras for the past 4 years or so (previously Nikon APS-C [D90] with 105mm Sigma). In retrospect, am glad that I made the switch - principally for the portability issue. PQ is good enough for me. For 'flies, I mainly use the Panasonic 100-400mm, which gives me the full zoom at 1.3m. I do have the Olympus 60mm macro, but rarely use it.

HTH, Jon

[MikeOxon]

I switched from Nikon to Olympus several years ago and have never looked back. Apart from the smaller size and lower weight, mirrorless cameras have many advantages. The viewfinder gives instant guidance on correct exposure, even for difficult subjects like Whites. Like Jonhd, I use a 100-400mm lens that has remarkable close-focus capability and acts as an extra-long macro. (There's now an Olympus version as well as the Panasonic) Advanced features such as pro-capture and high speed continuous electronic shutter make flight shots much easier to obtain, while the image stabilisation makes a tripod redundant. The 60mm macro is an excellent lens but I use it mainly for static subjects such as flowers.

Mike

[overthepass]

Thanks to both of you for the help. I'm inclined to opt for the Olympus and start with the 60mm macro, if only because the 185g lens weight is a big attraction, then think about a bigger/more versatile lens when I've got the feel of the camera more. The two you mention obviously have different pros and cons - it's rather frustrating that OM/Zuiko make a big thing out of producing a really lightweight camera with impressive performance, then when they come to the new telephoto zoom produce one that's significantly heavier and slower than the competition that's been around for a few years. But that is nothing to the perplexity I feel at Canon for removing a load of lenses from their (DSLR-oriented) EF range without corresponding additions to the (mirrorless-oriented) RF range.