I've spent about 2 years shooting with a beat up canon 70d I got on craigslist and I'm ready to drop some money on a new camera. I've narrowed my choices down to these two because of the following:

- Rugged and actually weather sealed
- I like the build quality, feel and color rendering of the lenses (HD pentax D-FAs and the OM pro f/2.8s)
- Comfortably in my budget used (with lenses)

I'm leaning more towards the OM because I will be backpacking a lot and the weight savings are attractive (especially with telephoto), however I'm willing to put up with the weight if the pentax will have outstandingly better image quality.

My use-case will be travel with a bit of wildlife photography, I will shoot everything in RAW and edit, and all of my photos will be shared online or printed to a max of 11x17". I also never carry a tripod/monopod.

Some of my pros for each system:
OM-1
>lightweight and compact
>m43 wider DOF
>more variety of modern glass
>cheaper telephoto options

K-1ii
>higher resolution (can crop for wildlife)
>better dynamic range and color depth
>better in low light?

I'm sure everyone will tell me to go full frame and go to the gym but I was hoping to get some additional perspective, ideally from someone who has owned both FF and modern m43.

Some additional points:
-I know they are both dead systems
-No I will not get a canon/nikon/sony

Thanks for your time