I am a relative new convert to the Olympus M43 system. I have been a Nikon user since my teenage years many, many years ago. My most recent Nikon cameras are the 850 and 500 and am so far still in possession of them. I've been slowly selling off the Nikon lenses which I have somewhat duplicated with the Olympus system. The new OM-1 is on preorder.

My question to all the HH is why do you think Olympus or OM System cameras are rarely listed in most "best of.."
cameras or lens systems? I have been very happy with my Olympus OM-E1-Mark 3 and I primarily do wildlife and landscape/abandoned. The entire system, other than the pro 150-400mm lens, is a pleasure for their weight. I can use the camera for hours without tiring. I find that frequently people snub this system --which I am taking a risk and assuming pertains to the Lumix GH M43 systems as well. Once you learn the Olympus system--and there is a learning curve--
the images are great. I can produce large size photos and the camera is only 20MP. I look forward to all the advancements the OM-1 promises to be.

So-please explain to me (in a nice manner) why photographers seem to feel other systems are far superior to Olympus.
TIA for the input.

Morning all! So I just got through taking a 5 day class with a very well known photographer who has won many, many awards, photos in the Smithsonian and is a judge for contests like Natures Best Photography. I learned sooo much about what makes a great photo.

Half way through the 5 days I was feeling quite overwhelmed and almost in tears because to get the photo that he would consider a photo seems near impossible. I totally understand photos before and just after sunrise and sunset are the best, but is it awful that I still want to take photos mid day? On several of my trips I have still gotten photos I really like, even though they do not have the special light and there are shadows etc. I scoured my photos and submitted them for the class and so far I do not have one photo that is not a "non-photo" due to shadow or lack of a hook or a background that is not totally creamy, or a host of other bad things.

I will post some of his comments to what I thought was going to be an ok photo.

The last one was reviewed verbally, the shadows! Bridge of the nose by eye, and the light patch of fur below the right eye as you look at the photo and curve shadow back to the nose is a big distraction. He could tell I was off by 2 degrees and that caused the bad shadow. The lighter fur to the left of the nose stops the eye from traveling from the lower left to the eye. You are supposed to have something soft in the lower left that makes your eye travel from lower left to the "hook" eye. In this case it does not work due to light fur interrupts the flow to the eye and then the shadows on the right. Then, the white fur on the lips could have been lightened to make it better if the other issues had not condemned it to be a "non-photo". Oh and the green line going through the background is bad.

Who knew you were not supposed to have sky in a bird photo, or that with something like a coyote all 4 legs must have separation and no crossover and that the farthest away front leg should be going forward. That the background must be very creamy with no light and dark areas. Shadows are the worst! Like crap, I was off by 2 or 4 degrees with the shadow. Must have a hook, no lines and of course good light, no messy sticks. Example an owl in a tree is bad if the leaves are all around it.

Anyway, I feel like a bad person/photographer for still liking some of my photos that are not perfect and still wanting to just have fun taking a photo and if I see a mom and baby moose at noon in a messy field of grass with a shadow, I'm still going to take the photo!

Again, I learned a LOT and the pro is a very nice guy and very talented. I will try and do what he says, but may still take what I know will be a "non-photo" am I bad?

Comments welcome, I have had lots of criticism lately, I can handle it! Well I might cry....

When I first started photography as a hobby, the rules for exhibitions were simple - The photo I entered was a picture that was not altered in any fashion. Today with the software available it is possible to "adjust" or enhance any or all of the original exposure. The sky can be changed from clear, blue daylight to a dark and stormy evening.
Items can be added and or subtracted etc etc.
What are the standards for entering a photo in a contest / exhibition when it is not explicitly stated? Are there ethics that govern what we do - or has photography turned into a new art form where anything goes as long as it is pleasing or interesting?
Just something I have been wrestling with and would like some thoughts.

The only pocket camera I carry is the best one on the market because it does everything my big Sony's, Canon's and Nikon's do.
The Sony HX99. Zeiss (the best) 24-720 mm zoom, pop up viewfinder for accurate framing, shots RAW, auto fill flash at the press of a button, rear screen folds up for low angle shots, does panoramic shots, you can print up to 20X30 sharp prints. In other words, this little guy does it all, trust me on this.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1437917-REG/sony_dsc_hx99_b_cyber_shot_dsc_hx99_digital_camera.html?sts=pi&pim=Y

Others here will talk a good game, I will walk it. Check out the following. Some were award winners.