Wow, I was just browsing and looking for these comparisons! Excellent video.

Fantastic series. Your effort is very much appreciated. I too have the A1+600/4........and I'm aging. We have also OMD M1 Mk III and M1X; so we are familiar with the Olympus ecosystem. But with age comes inability to heft and wield heavier kit.....so I'm studying the Oly 150-400 with the OM-1. Thanks for showing what can be done.

Nice comparison, thanks for sharing.

Superb video and an excellent and objective comparison. I just moved to the OM system precisely because of size, weight and portability, especially as I became more seasoned. At twice the cost of the Sony I don't see twice the result especially now that post processing programs are advancing so fast; however, both are fantastic, and each system has their advantages and disadvantages. Again, thanks for an excellent, very objective video comparing of the two systems...Cheers.

I really like your content and have subscribed for more. I am an OM systems user. You have done a good job of putting these systems side by side. It is relatively easy to compare the shallowness of the background, noise level, sharpness, AF tracking. But it is not so easy to compare the ability to get the bird in the frame, to reach to a difficult location quickly and to maneuver the system to catch a fast flying bird. On many occasions that is the difference between having a shot and not having a shot. Even more so if you use pro-capture feature, or 50fps or even 120fps capability.

Terrific video and great shots - from both combos. Great to see a comparison without declaring a “winner.” No question full frame flagships like the A1 and the 600 f4 have advantages over the M43 gear. But when you offset them with the size and weight - not to mention the computational features and cost - the Oly gear is a very compelling choice. If you had used the Zuiko 300 f4 pro in the comparison you may have been even more impressed with the weight saving at exactly the same reach. Full disclosure - I have owned and used the OM1 - 150-400mm 4.5 TC combo since last summer. I moved over from Nikon because I just didn’t want to buy the Z9 and spend C$18-24,000 on a monster 400 2.8 or 600 f4 combo. One tip. Shoot the OM1 to expose to the right a bit, slightly overexposed, then reduce and adjust in processing. In other words, push the ISO a bit then roll it back. The noise control improves as a result.

Great Video Dennis. I understand what you are trying to do here, but to me you have to look at what you want from your camera system. I have used full frame and micro 4/3rds and have realised they have different attributes. Full frame wins in many situations, noise, poor light, subject separation etc. I eventually went with micro 4/3rds because of the way I like to do my photography, which is on the move. I can hike all day with my OM-1 and 300 F4. At the end of the day the most important thing to me is to enjoy my photography, sure if I pixel peep then full frame will win most of the time, but I have been very pleased with my results when printing A4 photos of small birds like Dartford Warblers, Kingfishers, small waders. I believe too many of us are constantly looking for perfection in our equipment, no system is perfect. I think we should all enjoy our photography with the kit we have and strive to get the best out of it. I practise and try to learn form the many experienced photographers on KZfaq.

Another awesome video, Dennis! I did find it useful. I learned That sometime in the future, the OM system might be good for me. I’m glad to know image quality is so good. By the time I seriously consider switching over, I’m sure the auto focus will improve. That black woodpecker is absolutely gorgeous. Here in the US, we have its cousin the pileated woodpecker, which is equally beautiful.

Thank you for posting an interesting and thought provoking video!

Really, really interesting Dennis. The OM system I think is a good system, for every kind of photography. And yes, a comparison with the 200-600G lens would be really interesting 😀

Excellent video!

Superb video yet again

High quality content Dennis! You should check zemlin lens hood and caps for the Sony 600! Would love to see a review of the shorter lens hoods for better portability!

Results are as expected Dennis and thanks for doing it then sharing with us all. I also have direct true experiences shooing along side a friend who uses R5 and his Canon 600mm F4 lens w/wo TC1.4. For sure I can never compete with my friend in term of image IQ (DR and ISO) and the subject separation. The advantage I have is the portability and ability to get some shots he could never have gotten because of it. I will always get into certain position faster and better. Also, he would wear out a lot quicker then rely on this tripod while I am able to continue with two OM-1s, one equips with 300mm F4 w/wo TC1.4 and the other with 200mm F2.8. Yes, in very poor light, OM-1 will struggles or performs worse than R5 for fore sure A1 or Z9.. But just yesterday before sunrise, I went out with my friend and again I got the shots of the Great Horned owls dad and mom flying and bringing food to the babies using 400mm f2.8 where he couldn't pull it off. I got 300mm f4 for perch images and 400mm f2.8 set up for action shots. Anyhow, much appreciated for sharing the footage with those beautiful images.

Great video Dennis, exactly what I was looking for! I think you should make the comparison video with the Sony 200-600mm. Firstly, the A1 + Sony 200-600mm set would cost around the same as the OM-1 + M.Zuiko 150-400mm, whereas the Sony set you compared here costs around twice as much as the OM System set. Secondly, the 200-600mm is also a zoom lens so it would be a closer comparison in terms of functionality. Anyway, keep on making the the great content, cheers!

A great comparison, thank you for the video. The two configurations in this video are quite expensive, I would describe them as the “money is no object” configurations. What I think would be interesting to many, and certainly to me, is if one can obtain substantially the same performance for less money. To this end, a comparison of the Sony A1&GM200-600mm vs the OM-1&100-400mm would be quite interesting, and also the Sony A7Riv&100-400mm (perhaps in APSC mode) would be very interesting.

Very good comparison.

I enjoyed this video very much since I'm always interested in the opinions of other photographers about the gear they use. As a retired newspaper photographer I learned to appreciate zoom lenses and portability. While working I purchased Canon SX60hs and Leica V-Lux 114 bridge cameras for the online video work my paper required, using my Nikon D700 for sports and low light work. However, using these two bridge cameras, and now my Lumix G9 and 100-400mm lens, have taught me a new respect for small sensor cameras, especially for their long reach when it comes to wildlife. I envy the creamy-smooth backgrounds of full sensor cameras but my back and bank account really appreciate traveling light. Given how sensors and AF systems have improved so quickly it will be interesting to see how much closer they can come to current full sensor results in the future. I'd love to see a future Canon SX80hs come out with a creamy-smooth background digital filter.

Great video. Mange tak!

Thank you so much for putting in your thumbnail words what so many people still seem to fail to understand.

Very interesting comparison, thank you. I would definitely like to see how you find the Sony 200-600

What a great series of comparisons in real world examples! Well done. Nothing much surprised me in your findings so far, as I'm a long time OM shooter from the film era, but also get to use Sony A1 and A9 with 200-600mm sometimes for a few days at a time, just for fun. For sports work, the 400/2.8 and 600/4 are able to give the best separation where it does matter at the professional level, but in wildlife, I think the DOF difference is not as critical for me. I think what does come into play is the distance to the subject and the amount of pixels in the frame the subject will occupy. If I can get close enough to fill the frame at 300-500mm on the OM, then compared with the FF, I will likely have more pixels for enlarging than with the Sony. But if the subject is far away and the need to crop on the OM is very great, then the 600mm will resolve more detail than the OM at 500mm, especially if ISO is higher. Plus we can extend the 600mm to 840mm f/5.6 and get more details if conditions warrant. This mainly matters with birds and fur, and conditions have to be very good for either system going out that far. On the other hand, I think if I could fill the frame on the Sony 600, then the OM has to pull back to 300mm so again, the amount of magnification on the 600 can, in good light, reveal more details than at 300mm on the OM, sometime, but then again, the closer the subjects, these lenses are so sharp that at some point, they resolve all the detail the human eye can actually see from relatively close distances like 20-30 meters. And the agility of the OM can sometimes make it easier to find the subject, with that zoom capability. I've used the 200-600 mostly, and it's a little bigger and not quite as sharp as the OM 150-400, but it's still a very good performer at about 1/4 the price. The Sony lens is a bit longer and heavier. I really like the handling of the OM-1 body with the 150-400 when I've gotten a chance to try it (the balance seems very nice) and I've tweaked the settings to where it's getting very good results, but as you say, it's AF sometimes skips one or two frames before coming back to critical focus. Not sure why, but everyone I know experiences it. It's just that at 50fps, it's still more than enough sharp images.

Totally guessed wrong on the photos because I thought bokeh was better on the upper 2 pictures, which is what I took out of this comparison. In my eyes sharpness was equal in both lenes but the bokeh was smoother on the Sony before post processing. But after you post processed the photos for the Olympus the bokeh was much improved. Thank you for this comparison. Good job.

Great comparison Dennis! I am glad you highlighted the benefits of both systems :) I am curious on what CAF settings you used on both your set ups for the birds in flight? I would expect the Sony to have performed slightly better (which it did) but not by much more if the OM-1 was set to its optimal AF settings for birds in flight. Did you use AI bird focus for both cameras? FYI, just incase you did, *do not use* CAF+tracking with the OM-1 for birds in flight, or with any AI autofocus mode, just us CAF with AI bird autofocus. Looking forward to your next video. Cheers!

Great video. That would be a great idea comparing Sony 200-600 to the 150-400.

Very good and interesting video Dennis (as always) I feel sure that in very poor light ,the Sony will beat the OM1. In good or average light there is probably nothing between them. I think you will also find the autofocus for video better on the Sony. My only complaint of the OM1 is that I wish the video focusing was better. I will be interested to see what you think of the Procapture feature on the OM1, once you start trying it out.

Nice & quiet good comparison. Really appreciated. Now, on personal preference on the photos I have to say that while Sony has a really nice DOF it however for my taste removes the subject to much from their background / environment on a lot of instances where the OM1 with 150-400 does gets it “more” right. Probably I would say around F6ish on Sony is the sweet spot. Anyhow. As an OM1 User you got the AF issue spot on. The lens is perfectly fast enough. It’s one of the fastest in the Olympus system. However, the OM1 while a brilliant step forward from the likes of the EM1X really needs the FW 2.0 to smother the AF issues. For now the insane FPS and the brilliant ProCapture “fix” the AF inconsistencies. If they fix a lot then with the 2.0 an OM1 with the 150-400 would be insane value for money, which in principle it is already.

Nice comparison. The DOF difference with FF does show a bit. Both systems look equally capable though

Thanks for a great presentation, Dennis. I shoot both systems as well for different reasons: OM for speed agility, weight; Sony for percieved higher IQ. When you realize the format of presentation - computer screens and Iphones ( Ican'rt remember the last time I printed a photo at museum scale), micro 4/3rds Re the "best" choise for wiildlife endeavors. Good luck to all y fellow p-hotogs!

Have tried comparing the images between using the 1.25x tc vs without tc and just cropping? I'm wondering how good the built-in tc is.

A very good comparison Dennis. If I were able to I'd have both systems. Given the choice of just one system I know the M43 system would get more use than FF. Having switched to M43 from the Canon R5 and 600mm f4 I won't be going back to FF. In absolute image quality FF is better than M43 but it's close enough and good enough for my needs. In terms of cost and portability M43 wins hands down.

There are videos that are true gems and this is one of them. As for discovering the photos, I was wrong. I said 1 and 2 are Sony and 3 and 4 Om1. But in conclusion, I must say that I expected better bokeh from the Olympus lens, although it is understandable given its smaller size compared to the full frame sensor. Thank you very much for this video.

sharpness is one thing but I find the subject seperation looks so much more pleasing on the full frame setup.

I believe you made a good video - but what focus modes did you use and did you employ the pro capture?

I got all😢 4 correct though I have access to both system. I would like to see the 200-500 comparison the OM system cameras deserve more attention than they get especially with pro-capture and the other computational features

Very nice…yes please do a comparison video with the Sony 200-600.😀👍

Thank you for comparison video. Just one question: did you update OM-1 software to 1.4 version? Some users report much better AF performance on updated firmware.

Great comparison. I wonder how you would rate the OM-1 mark ii for AF, any plans for the future?

Useful and interesting video. I could talk for hours on the plus and minuses for each system. The answer is simple - Buy both!! I have literally just ordered today a used Sony a1 and 100-400mm GM plus x2 TC which is smaller and more versatile than the 600mm lens you were reviewing. Already have the OM-1 and 150-400mm lens as well as wide variety of M4/3 lenses. I am only an amateur and now retired shooting mostly wildlife and nature photography and video. 😊😊😊

4:55 => This is why the lens can be smaller, it's just not collecting near the same amount of light. To get the same background separation as the GM600 f/4, you would need a 300mm f/2 for M43, and such a lens would be the same size, possibly larger, than the 600mm f/4.

Congratulations on your photographs and your channel.... I made two observations from watching this video. Full frame DOF is very artistic, but takes away the context from a photograph. Also, in this comparison the photographs from the Sony had a lime/yellow color cast. ..Best regards.

I will say, most of the sony photos did come out looking nicer. Although I do run with olympus and the 300mmf/4. Mostly because of the handling and it was what I happened to find a good deal on used. I do always envy FF, but I am really happy with olympus regardless. My skill is still the limiting factor 90% of the time, and it produces really good results, even if they aren't quite as good as the output from FF. I find my combo the perfect size for me for hiking and handheld shooting. And I also do a lot of handheld macro shots, and I find a lot of the features really convenient.

I used the one MK2 and 300mm f4 plus flash in manual with better beamer set up I was beside a fellow on grizzley bear boat tour shooting Nikon full frame with 600mm f4 He was stuck in one place with tripod while I moved around effortlessly getting different angles on the boat. I'm seriously thinking of getting the Olympus 150-400mm for it's zoom versatility. Thanks for your informative and professional video on this lens. I shot Nikon D4 full frame lots and know the Olympus has limits with low light and some focus issues,but with the flash extender I've had great success rate shooting bald eagles in low light with my Olympus bodies and lens. Good light and camera shooting to you 😊

The comparrison between the OM-1 100-400 and the Sony A1 200-600 World be the best and I hope you could do that for us. Would it be possible to shoot at ISO 2000-3200 without harsh Light or contrast and deliver us two optimised pictures of the two worlds, so we can print zu compare? I think if we optimise the two im Topaz you cant really tell a difference.

I would love to see the comparison with the Sony 200-600. It should be a good comparison as the DOF is closer to the Olympus. Om-1 user, but interested in the Sony 200-600 and a Sony camera.

Nice comparison Dennis, i am surprise that the images from the OM-1 is par with the Sony best lens, the light weigh is a big plus for me, getting older you know...LOL Thanks, Quan

Thank you very much for the video! I am considering both cameras. The A1, which I have rented, has a fantastic viewfinder image. Almost like a DSLR. How does the OM-1 viewfinder compare? Also, Mike Lane FRPS channel also compared these two cameras, as you probably know. He found that the OM-1 AF initial acquisition was a fair bit better but the Sony’s tracking was marginally better. However, the 50fps of the OM-1 tilted the number of keepers in its favor, so with very small and fast birds the OM-1 came out on top (especially with busy backgrounds).

Well done and objective video. Like others, I would have loved to see a similar comparison using the Olympus 300mm f/4 Pro lens, as it is probably as sharp as the 150-400mm @ 300mm. That comparison would show a greater variation in weight and price between the two systems. Clearly, the Sony set up gives better high ISO performance, shallower DOF, and more leeway for heavy cropping. However, one advantage to the OM System that is not mentioned, is the number of features that the Sony does not have -- the most important for birding, being the 'Pro Capture' feature. I shoot with an Olympus E-M1X and have gotten bird action images that I simply could not have gotten with the Sony system, without a truckload of extreme luck. I have a series from a Hummingbird altercation captured at 60 FPS that I would have missed with any FF system on the market right now. Aside from that, the LIve ND, Live Composite, and 15 frame in-camera Focus Stacking are game changers. I realize that soon, most top tier cameras systems will offer such features, but Olympus has always been on the leading edge of such innovative camera technology -- and one of the reasons I have been a consistent user of their gear.

I have both as well and I have much the same conclusion in terms of IQ. I think that says alot about the OM setup that there is even a comparison to be made. Which system I use depends on the conditions (light levels) I'm shooting in or how far I'm hiking. Question, when shooting BIF were you using bird eye-AF with or without tracking? I only mention it because the consensus is that tracking is pretty poor and you'll get more keepers leaving it off.

Thanks Dennis twice the price twice as good ? Well not that straightforward as usual in wildlife photography ! I can see why I shoot wide open with the 600mm the isolation of the subject is superior ! A fairer comparison and more equal weight option is with the Sony 200-600 f5.6-6.3 ! I think the results would be even more similar with the f6.3 at the long end of the zoom from my experience. So no need to test the 200-600mm for me ! I always use the 600mm f4 when I can get it into position ! I went for 1 & 4 as the Sony A1 the quality is definitely there in both systems. Great comparison video you have saved me a lot of money looking like I will be sticking with the Sony A1 and 200-600mm in a walk about situation not investing in the lighter system ! A7iv and 200-600mm would be a great combo at half the price of the OM-1 system I thin🤔k ?

Wonder which captures better detail of Hi flying Jets .. Which is what i like doing . Looking for something to replace what i currently use . Does the Tripod collar give good stability on the G600 . What was the mount on the smaller tripod ? . Be nice if you soley capture in JPEG for the next test .

Thank you for this great video. If I consider the difference in price, the OM-System is doing a fantasitic job. Unfortunately the 150-400mm is not available at the moment. Did you test the OM-Sytems 300mm f/4. It has a similar angel of view and the same speed than the Sony 600mm f/4. What ist your opinion about this lens compared to the Sony System.

Test the 200-600 against the 100-400. That is the one I would like to see. The takeaway for this comparison was the blurring of the foreground and backgroundf by the Sony. Much better than the OMD. That is why I want to see the 2 lenses mentioned compared. Much more level playing field.

A definite comparison of the Sony 200-600 would be great as comparing a Prime to a zoom doesn't make sense I my opinion as a Prime will always be sharper.

As you know I am using the both systems.I am dreaming that one day I can adapt the Olympus 150-400mm lens on one of my Sony bodies.Or a 50MP stacked sensor OM System camera.The quality of this lens is incredible.I have also Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 lens also a fantastic lens.

I would like to see the results of the 200-600 sony. I know that is really a great optic. I was surprised with the 150-600 . Good video thanks

very nice, quick question what about the price of each set up? camera and lens, the weight? camera plus lens, and length, camera+lens? thank you

Great voice for the Om system, but you for got to mention the big price difference between them too.

The OM-1 is looking good! That 150-400 is pretty pricey though, but not as pricey as that 600!

Great comparison. Thank you. The truth is not entirely correct. And the point is not only that the price of these assemblies differs exactly twice, but also in the type of lenses. In the case of Sony this is a fixed focal length, in the case of OM systems it is zoom. No matter how good a zoom lens is, it will always be inferior to a prime lens of a similar class in accuracy and sharpness. Try comparing the GM600mm with the Olympus 300mm f/4 pro. In this case, the focal lengths will be adequate and both lenses will be prime. It seems to me that the OM 1 + 300/4 Pro Set will surprise you even more. True, such a set will be three times cheaper than SONY A1 + GM 600.😁

@7:05 - it seems like sometimes the OM1 is not quite sharp like the focus is off or maybe the IBIS is inducing blur when panning?

Mycket trevlig jämförelse, bra att du skrev avståndet i alla bilder.

confrats,verry interesting video,it would be nice if we could download the raw files.(not all but some of them.. ).Keep up the good work.

great thing as mike lane says you get equal amount of keepers if you use 50fps on the om-1 i take my om-1 on long walks just in case I see something its so versatile especially with say the 300mmf4 or a 100-400 ,I have stumbled on so many good shots this way I cant see myself doing it with something as big as the A-1 set up ...so obtrusive ,especially on my wallet!

hi Dennis the differences between the OM system and the Sony system are very small in favor of the sony. the om system does very well, especially if you put it away against the 50 megapixxels of the sony a1. on the other hand, the very last video of Espen helland about his musk oxen in dovrjell is very bad. I look forward to the comparison with the sony 200-600mm lens and the A1 against the olympus OM-1 with the 150-400. thanks for this informative video

How interesting your comparison is considering the OM-setup is roughly half the weight and half the prize of the Sony-setup but photos turn out much better than half as good. I really like your unagitated content, thank you for your nice work.

I do have one question why use TC x1.25 on the OM-1 ? if you have a 400mm on 4/3 this is a crop factor about 2 so approx 800mm equiv full frame isn't it ? or is the 400mm already the 35mm equiv value ?

Is shallower depth of field really worth almost double (or more) vs lighter better sealed IP rated gear vs the Sony?

Does the 150-400 open up better backpack storage for your gear? if so, what do you use?

It would be possibile to see the two files ( photos ) a 280meters ? Possibly via WeTransfer Thank you very much

At 4:20 I'm guessing you meant 1.391 kg instead of g....otherwise not much of a weight difference! Cheers for this comparison!

For a more accurate comparision, you should have set your Sony to f6.3, which is what the Oly is using in effect when it is set at f4.5. You can see the difference in the backgrounds, so not a fair test.

It's so hard to tell them apart, just down to personal preferences ...

Its just the background blurs that really show the difference here on youtube..... If you want really lovely pictures of birds either are fine, but when it comes to creating something more artistic, the Sony just gives you more choices.... The picture of the swan at 2.58 is the perfect example.

For your test, I went on background blur only. I got 2 out of 4 correct. I'm no expert though, and it was numbers 1 and 3 I got wrong.

One key point about depth of field (DOF), for those who don't know. The shorter the focal length of the lens, the greater the depth of field for any given aperture. Compare a 300mm lens to a 600mm lens and the 300mm at f/4 will have the same depth of field of a 600mm lens at f/8. So, of course the Sony setup will have much less DOF at 600mm and f/4 than the shorter, slightly slower OM system setup shooting at 400mm and f/4.5. Now, if you want more DOF, then the OM system is preferable. If want subject isolation, than the Sony full frame system has it.

Apart from the "better" background seperation of the Sony I can't see any advantages of the full frame camera and lens! Concerning resolution, colour and contrast they are practically equal. With regard to the end-products (prints in books and magazines for example) there are more arguments for the compact and lighter mFT- system than for full frame. I just make the move from a Nikon Z full frame system to the OM-1 and I do not look back.

Thanks for the video. To be honest if you get the same background separation on Olympus f4.5 as on Sony f7 it is hard to find a reason to buy an Olympus instead of Sony 200-600. I get that Olympus is probably better quality and also has TC, but come on, it is 4 times more expensive. If you find good offer, you can buy used A1 and 200-600 for the price of Olympus. However I find Olympus 300f4 to be reasonably priced, but don't want fixed focal lenght. Used to have Olympus 100-400F6.3 and it is not really a good lens, too big for what it is and too dark for M43 standards.

it isa good idea 200-600 vs om-system :-) I like your video. what is your conclusion? (I think the om s is more versatile)

I think the comparison between the 200-600 and the 150-400 will be more on a same level. Both in terms of weight and prize… The 4/600 (from every brand) will ever be king, if you can afford it. But with some work afterwards on the computer, the results will come nearer and nearer, for significantly less money… It is like looking at cars: a Porsche or Ferrari will ever stay, but other cars can also produce a lot of fun and can be really fast.

Both take great photos and only a pedant would worry about it. At the end of the day its comes down to personal preference.

I guessed 3 and 4 were the om symptoms, I shot both too

Do you have a drop-in filter for the 600?

I take a lot of insect photos with my Oly 300+MC14, the closest focusing distance is 1.4 m. How close can you get with the Sony system?

Would like comparison in distant for small birds

Not a lot in it all round. For autofocus all the big manufacturers are pretty much in the same place - OM certainly innovated with the pre-capture. If I could live without the background separation and resolution of my current system (incl. 600mm F4) I'd likely end up with OM.

The Sony equipment used in the comparison here in Uk is £18000.00. The OM-System kit is £8500.00. The Sony lens is a prime. Primes are easier to design and generally produce better quality images. The OM lens is a zoom , which in its base configuration already a third more reach and infinite framing possibilities compared to the fixed angle of view of the prime. There are no full frame lenses which are comparable with it. If you really wanted to match the lenses you could save a further £4,000.00 and just use the fabulous 300mm f4 Pro lens from OM Systems. It too accepts the 1.4 and 2.0 converters but I would recommend the 1.4 giving a FF equivalent of 840mm. This combination fits into a Billingham Hadley Pro shoulder bag. It is extremely light for its reach and you can carry around all day. Total cost in the Uk for the OM-1 / 300mm f4 pro / 1.4 tx and is £4797.00. Run the high iso images through Topaz or DXO and use the £13,000.00 you save on travelling to exotic locations to take photographs of birds you cannot see in your own patch.

F4.5 on MFT has equivalent depth of field at equivalent focal length/distance at F9 on full frame (also times x2 of the crop factor). Incoming light is still F4.5 on MFT.

Please allow me a comment for the part from 4:40 to 5:30: Any "full frame" camera separates the subject better than any "crop" camera for a specific angle of view because crops have to shoot wider. If you would shoot both let's say 400mm at f4 you would have the exact same separation (same depth of field) but a wider frame in ff that you should crop down to have the same result as in m4/3. So I find it to be somehow weird to compare depth of field between different systems in the way you did in this video. Other than that, I found the video very interesting.

Your comparison video was interesting. Both systems take excellent photos under both great and difficult conditions and you did an excellent job of capturing the images. However, I believe that you used an incorrect OM System lens for comparison. If you had used the prime Zuiko Digital ED 300 mm f4 Pro lens (equvalent field of view on the OM-1 micro 4/3 body of a 600 mm lens), you would have been comparing systems of equal focal length and aperture. I believe that you would have found the image quality even more similar. In addition, the systems differ substantially in cost and size. The length of the Sony lens is 45 cm (without the lens hood?), the length of the 300 mm Zuiko lens is 23 cm without the lens hood extended, a difference by a factor of roughly 2. The weight of the camera and lens system for the Sony is 3.8 kg, almost 2 times the weight of the OM System, 2.1 kg. Concerning cost, the Sony system cost is on the order of $17,500 while the OM system is on the order of $5,000, a difference of a factor of 3.5 times. One may argue that the Sony system is better as the A-1 uses a full frame sensor of 50 Mpx that has 4 times the surface area of the 20 Mpx micro 4/3 sensor. Both sensors perform well in low light situations. Therefore, in my opinion, the only advantage of the larger sensor is that the 50 Mpx image can be cropped to a greater extent than the 20 Mpx image while retaining a higher pixel count. Given the excellent quality of image enlargement software on the market today, this is not much of an advantage. I am an engineer and an engineer would never justify the 3 times greater cost and 2 times greater length and weight of the Sony system for a possible minor gain in image quality over that of the OM System.

I picked 1 and 4 for Oly ... DOH!

To be more fair. Should have compared the 150-400mm to the Sony 200-600mm as they would both be zoom lenses. I have used mostly Canon in the past, but switched to micro 4/3 and do not regret it. Sony cameras are rather quite pricey and could not believe for the money that you pay the LCD can't swivel. That fact that I can walk around all day with the micro 4/3 and hand hold is a big bonus. I would love to have the 150-400mm lens with built-in 1.25 TC lens. Having the much better min focus distance is another great feature.

To get the same bokeh with the olympus you need to be closer?

I got all images wrong. It must mean that OM is performing very good.

I liked 🎉

After one minute it Was clear you missed what the point of OM1+150400 is. No tripod needed!

great video, thank you (annoying/loud music sometimes, sorry)

Not exactly right to compare a zoom with a prime, but it was still an enjoyable video.

The A1 with 600mm would be nice but the OM-1 with 150-400mm is much more affordable. Both kits are better than my photography skills.

All of the Sony bodies I've tried, they've always lacked the fun-factor Olympus/OM System has always had, which is a deal-breaker for me, since this is just a hobby and I do this for fun. I would only choose Sony if I would make a living out of this. And after all, the gear you use doesn't really matter in the end.