Four Thirds lenses vs Micro Four Thirds lenses IQ

Thanks so much for the information, it is very helpful. I was looking into a cheaper alternative for Micro Four Thirds, since the prices are still high for my budget (I can't buy any new lenses from one single month's salary if the price is under 250 Euros, and used lenses from Micro Four Thirds are not common in Romania).

I started working on a project of recording images, panoramas and time-lapse sequences of 3 gorges that are in the mountains near my town (less than 20km away) and I would like to take better macro (than Sigma's 60mm and 19mm maximum magnification with no add-ons) and at times wider shots without having to resort to stitch multiple 19mm images and specially when I am stuck at 19mm at widest for time-lapses.

Summer is the easiest and best way to do this project so I don't have a lot of money to invest, because I don't have enough time to work and save up more money. without postponing the project to next year.

Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm f 2.8-3.5  MK I goes for around 100 Euros (found only one for sale) and the MK II goes for 200 to 250 Euros, which at that point I could go with a Micro Four Thirds lens, maybe even a 14-140mm from Panasonic, but its to expensive at the moment.

Olympus Zuiko Digital 35mm f 3.5 Macro is the cheapest dedicated macro lens I found in my country right now, 60 Euros, and adding 50 euros for the adapter makes it as expensive as Soligor 100mm f 3.5 (Minolta MD mount) and Vivitar 100mm f 3.5 (Pentax K mount) but his lenses need adapters too. I would be using manual focus anyway.

I have only a Panasonic GX7 and a, very old an battered, Panasonic G1 so I know AF would be limited, just don't know how much.