Activity

I agree with your conclusions here. I've used the OM-D + Lumix 100-300mm with great effect on wildlife and birds in flight. But, yes, I need to flutter the shutter and use other techniques to track birds in the sky. Obviously, the larger the bird/subject the better the AF operates. With birds like herons I can count on reasonable consistency ... same with Ospreys or eagles, particularly where flight patterns are somewhat predictable.

Where the gear combo fails often is with smaller, fast-moving birds. I'm not too bothered by it because I come from several years back of using an E-3 + 70-300mm which is actually much slower and less sharp than my micro-four-thirds setup. I still prefer my Zuiko 50-200mm lens ... but the technology of the E-3 is so far behind the OM-D that I end up traveling the OM-D far more often and -- like you -- appreciate the lightness of being, which is pretty much a necklace weight compared to other gear. Some of my OM-D wildlife shots are on my Flickr pages. I've been happy with it so far, understanding the various limitations (http://www.flickr.com/photos/taylar/)

If the new DSLR-hybird rumors of an OM-D-style camera manifest -- one I can use well with my 50-200mm -- it would be an ideal setup for me. I can't effectively use AF for BIFs when attaching the 50-200mm to the OM-D with adapter.