Am i excepting to much from m4/3?

When I am planning on doing some dedicated bird or other wildlife photography - where that is the main purpose of my outing - I use a Tamron 150-600 with a Canon 700D (not the best body by any means, but I just needed something I could get cheaply at the time).

When I am going out hiking and figure I might come across some wildlife, I use an OM-D E-M1 mki and Olympus 75-300.

The Tamron/Canon setup is much bigger, bulkier and heavier (though that is all in the lens; the Canon is the lightest ILC I own). But carrying the Tamron by the tripod mount handle I can walk with it all day. I just can't easily put it in a backpack or use it alongside a camera with a wider angle lens and it isn't ideal if I have to scramble over rocks or do any bushbashing. The Olympus setup is of course much, much more compact.

Both get almost equally good shots, but I do find the larger sensor is a bit more detailed, cleaner and less noisy. The Tamron has more reach (900mm equivalent field of view vs 600mm) so is simply better in that regard. I also find the DSLR much more effective, reliable and accurate to focus, even though the Canon only has a small number of focus points. With the Tamron/Canon I get shots in focus probably 90% of the time (I had an earlier Tamron/Nikon D7000 setup and that was 95%+). With the Olympus it is lower and much lower if there is foliage and so on around.

If I had to choose just one system, I would go for the Tamron/Canon and accept not being able to take it to places I can take the smaller system. Fortunately, through buying everything at second hand bargain prices, I can afford the best of both worlds.