Better deal: $299 for a new G3 with 14-44 lens, or $1,299 for a GH3 body?

Not BS. Just BH. I have no affiliation, but merely took note today, and my jaw dropped.

Both prices are real, albeit incredible. The price for the G3 is unbelievably low. It also makes the 4.3X multiple cost of the GH3 body unbelievable too. Would Warren Buffet or Carlos Slim ascended to their billionaire bracket by paying 4.3X more for the sake of obscure, unvetted things.

Is it wise to aspire to shoot video at bitrates that exceed the capacity of anyone's Blu-ray player, streaming bandwidth, editing software, or card capacity--all for the sake of videos that charm viewers mainly on the basis of music, sliders, copters, cars, lighting gear, models, wardrobes, and locations that don't come in the box?

As much as one might like the idea of a GH3, or even an OMD EM-5, that price for the G3 just about kills any arguments.

In that context, anyone looking at a G5, NEX5r, D3200, D5200, J2/V2, or any other economically rational camera choice should also take pause.