Switch to Panasonic good idea or not worth it?

At the moment I use Canon 60mm and 65mm lens and am thinking about doing the following in April
1) Get Panasonic GX820 and a macro lens and raynox from ideally a company with 30 day returns
2) Test them and see if I can get better than with my Canon

If I can keep them then sell the 65mm lens and possibly the 60mm, I will still keep the Canon bodies for birds and people.
I will use the macro lens for bigger insects and put the raynox on it for smaller ones. Any ideas on how easy it is to take these off? I would be worried about losing it. Saying that I don't often need to use both lenses at the same time.

This is because of Post Focus, I think for someone like me who doesn't use tripods much and 99% of the time photographs live insects it should be easier to get stacks with Panasonic. Any thoughts?

Here is my current flickr public photos, most of which are Macro
https://www.flickr.com​/photos/14586608@N08/

Raynox lens just clips on like a lens cap, very quick release.

racketman wrote in post #18811877
Raynox lens just clips on like a lens cap, very quick release.

Thank you for that, what do you think about the idea - I notice that you still use both. I would want to just use which ever is better.

Hard to say which is better, certainly the Panasonic's post focus utilising the 4K burst feature is handy for macro stacks. Personally I would want to keep the MPE65 for tiny subjects but have seen very good work with tubes and Raynox.

A camera with a primary lens that captures image in 1X - 5X magnification range will always be optically superior to using a supplemental generic auxiliary lens to accomplish same zoom range!

Wilt wrote in post #18812450
A camera with a primary lens that captures image in 1X - 5X magnification range will always be optically superior to using a supplemental generic auxiliary lens to accomplish same zoom range!

But couldn't the built in focus stacking more than compensate that? I have not seen any evidence that Panasonic + macro + raynox look worse, in fact more the contrary.

The addition of optics in front of any primary lens simply uses the primary lens' perforamance as a starting point...and then it degrades it from there.
The additional optic-air surfaces within the convertor lens will lower the primary lens light transmission further.
The supplemental lens allows the macro image to be larger on the sensor, but the detail resolution is never better than that of the original lens...it degrades the detail resolution although the detail appear larger!

Even with a teleconvertor made by Canon to be optimized with Canon telephoto lenses, which mount behind the original optics (not in front of the original optics) detail resolution has been measured at about -10% loss in quality.

It has long been espoused that in terms of IQ the order (in order of best first) is generally

1. macro optics
   
2. normal optics + extension tube
   
3. normal optics + convertor lens double element filter
   
4. normal optics + convertor single element filter