Jalywol help compare Ergonomics of OMD and Sony Ar7

Hi

I note that Jalywol has recently purchased a Sony Ar7.  So I place this post in the mf4/3 forum and also in the Sony forum.

I've long invested in the compact systems of 4/3 and m4/3 because I want photography to be accessible and of good quality.

I waited a long time for the sensor technology to catch up to the competition so that I can do theatre photography without feeling I have overly compromised the result and with the need to do less PP.

With the Em1 and Em5, Oly has largely delivered what I want.  The camera sensors can manage the low light and high DR very well - but still not as well as FF  - and probably never will.   There are just a few times where the light is so poor that I worry whether the results will be OK - but pretty much always I can produce a good result.

In all this time investing in the compact 4/3 system, I expected the Sensor technology would make m4/3 good enough but not as good as FF.

What I did not expect was that FF cameras would get as small as m4/3s.  If I can get that extra level of low light ability and remain compact than I have to consider it - I wont have compromised results for customers and I spend less time on PP.

• The Sony Ar 7 is virtually the same size as the Em1.
• Zeiss 24-80 F4 is close in size to the Oly 12-40 F2.8
• Sony 70-200 F4 is twice the size as the Pany 35-100 but about the same size as the Oly 40-150 F2.8.
• The primes are big and there are not many. 

So the AR7 is supposed to be loud and slow autofocusing in low light.  The control dials less convenient than the Omd's.

What can people tell me about the real world differences in ergonomics.  Is the AR7 just slow in comparison with a Nikon D800e or is it just the same as an Oly Omd?

Cheers

Ray