Maybe I was wrong?

[jcuknz]

I do loose out on the ultimate detail of a dedicated high quality macro set-up but for a good all around camera at a reasonable cost that does good work in most areas it is hard to beat a good bridge.

I do so agree with you on that point about a bridge and I only went to MFT because R&D went to super tromboning zooms which I didn't want and have ended up as a 'second best' advance with my 14-140 on MFT. Unfortunately I have had to put up with the tromboning and f4>f5.8 ... just waiting for a constant f/2.8 like the FZ200 but I have made my choice and sitting with it.
A s/h FZ50 would be a good all-round camera for you with a 2 dioptre CU lens might only cost what you would pay for the 50's and doesn't have a tromboning lens which must surely be a hazard in your climate as it sucks and blows with zooming. The 2D gives me a 1.5 inch subject from around 13 inches which doesn't scare the wee beasties by being up close. Why I talk of ignoring the macro setting on the suggested 50's which is for people who are happy to be up close. edit ... and I am sure there are fishhooks in their systems as with previous designs. with coming in extremely close but only at WA etc. which doesn't give 'tight framing'.