Which combo would you recommend?

[parodying]

I could either get a Panasonic GF1 and 14-45mm lens (the original more expensive one) for $175, or I could get a GX1 with the 14-42mm and 20mm f/1.7 (original) for $300.

Which one is a better deal? I know the GX1 is a bit better in high ISO but other than that is it really better than the GF1?

 

[Bif]

I would opt for the GX1 with 14-42 and 20mm f1.7. Mainly because you can get an external EVF (the LVF2) at B&H for $159 and that makes the GX1 into a super flexible easy to see through camera. While the original 14-45 may be a bit better (I have 2 of them) you won't see much if any practical difference between the two. Both are reasonably sharp.

I had a GX1 with the LVF2 and gave it to my grandson when I got the GX7. The 20mm f1.7 is an outstanding wide normal prime on the GX1.

 

[Turbofrog]

Definitely the GX1. The 20mm/1.7 is worth $200 by itself.

Zoom-wise, the 14-45mm is supposed to be pretty good, and probably quite a bit better than the older 14-42 I, but I would be very surprised if it was better than the newer 14-42 II. So it might sort of depend on which version of the lens comes bundled.

But the GX1 is pretty much a strict upgrade in every way from the GF1 body-wise. It's hard to imagine an advantage that the older body might have.

Really it's all about that 20mm, which is a fantastic lens.

 

[Replytoken]

I just picked up a used 20mm on Craigslist, and the seller offered to throw in a GF1 for $30 (as I broke up the kit). I declined, but that will give you some idea of their pricing on the open market, albeit that was probably near the lower end of the range.

Regarding the lenses, the 14-45 and the 20 are nice glass, and the second version of the 14-42 is also a keeper, so perhaps that should guide you since bodies loose their value so quickly.

Good luck,

--Ken