This is not a troll question. I just bought the Olympus OM-D to replace my Nikon D7100, mainly to save on weight and bulk for taking travel photos. I just got back from a trip to Hawaii and was very surprised when processing the photos in Lightroom. I had expected that the low light performance would be better and the images might be a little better. Apparently, I’m not dead still when I click the shutter and I anticipated that the 5 point IS would help. What I didn’t expect was white balance and exposure accuracy. Just about every RAW image coming out of my Nikon needs adjustment in LR, especially the WB. I’m telling you, the images out of the OM-D were great straight off the card. And yes, the low light performance was amazing and every photo is tack sharp. The WB is just right on. My question - why? On paper the Nikon should be hands down superior. I’ve been taking photos since 1977 and have owned a mix of Canons and Nikons. I’ve been using Photoshop since 1993. I’m not so much interested in what’s better about the Olympus, I’m more interested in what I was doing wrong with the Nikon. If I can discover why I’m hoping I can be a better photographer.