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

I think the argument is misplaced, in this case, because the two cameras are not really comparable. The G3 can certainly do well some of the things the GH3 can do (also well, hopefully), but not all of them. If you want a machine that can do all those things, especially on the video front, of course - and you can afford it - the GH3 looks like a great choice even at its relatively high price.

If you can't afford it, or don't want to pay the price, you are lucky because you now have some incredibly cheap options. Not only the G3 but the GX1 and the GH2 are heavily discounted and the latter still produces the excellent video quality it always did. For a long while it was hard to buy the equivalent video image for less than 10x the cost of the GH2 - even at its highest price. There are more options coming onto the market now, yet the GH3 still looks like very good value for what it can do in my opinion.

Rick