1. If you have such appreciation of different sensor sizes why you continue the idiotic thought that OM-1 is a low resolution camera? (or at least a lower resolution camera than other ones?)
In the part of the R5's, Z9's and D850's sensor in the center in an area equal to Olympus sensor size (2X crop) it has about 11.25 Mpixels.
Sony's A1 corresponding sensor part has 12.5 Mpixels
A bird that covers all the frame of Olympus would have 20Mpixels.
If shot with Canon, Nikon or Sony at the same distance with the same lens Focal Length it would contain almost half the megapixels (11 to 12 as stated above).
So OM-1 as all other 4/3rds cameras have higher pixel density than almost all DSLRs and mirrorless cameras (one exception I know is Canon's 90D). It just doesn't use a FF or a APS-C sensor but a smaller one with its advantages and disadvantages.
2. Also who mentioned in Olympus that pixel-shift is meant to be used for moving subjects ?
Sure if a bird is ... sleeping you could use it....
1 - It seems to me that anyone buying a lens would choose it primarily for its
angle of view! Wide angles for wide views, long focal lengths for narrow angles of view to pick out smaller or more distant objects.
The whole point of M43 for many people is the fact that you can obtain the same
angle of view on M43 with a nice lightweight 300mm lens that you would need a heavy and vastly more expensive 600mm lens if shooting on FF!
To make a comparison between formats, as you are doing, based on focal length, is a bit odd, to say the least...
2 - Pixel-shift on early cameras was slow and resulted in ghastly artefacts on moving water or foliage. It rendered moving objects, even slow-walking humans occupying a small part of the frame, as blurs. Processors are faster now, BSI sensors have faster readouts, and M43 has the advantage that the smaller sensor has to be moved a shorter distance to produce pixel-shift, so is faster, and more usable for hand-held hi-res, and for slow moving subjects.
Ultimately the aim must be for M43 to be able to compete directly with FF by offering similar (or better) performance, including hand-held hi-res bursts. The OM1 can't do that, which is why I'm disappointed. But, I believe if it had a global shutter, a faster processor and used CFE-B instead of slower SD cards, it would come much closer to matching the performance of A1, Z9 and R5. And guess what - if it did, I'd sell my FF gear and switch to Olympus!
I'll certainly be very interested in following further developments with the OM system, and hopefully a global shutter, faster processor and CFE-B slot will appear within a couple of years.
3 - Accusing a fellow poster of having "idiotic thoughts" is provoking escalation and usually results in retaliation or rudeness. I have no intention of descending to that level, but it's something you should consider when replying to people.