Obviously, the Panasonic has longer reach, which is useful. For a trip to Alaska, would that be more valuable or would the higher quality of the Olympus 50-200 be preferable? I know it depends on usage, but this would be for a variety of uses on such a tour.
I guess one thing to ask is whether the 50-200 is much better at 200mm (so that cropping could prove useful) than the Panasonic would be at 200mm? Would an Olympus 200mm shot be able to be cropped and still meet or better the general quality of the Panasonic at 300mm? I would expect not, but thought it useful to ask people with experience. These would be on an E-M1 camera.