OM1n battery issue

CGW · Oct 28, 2011

Les Sarile said:
Try to remanufacture an electronic part.
Like I said, we will see 52-54 years from which ones are paperweights and which ones are fully . . . I'll even give you odds on that bet . . .

Moot point but if it amuses you, rock on.

Chan Tran · Oct 28, 2011

If I have an OM-1 I would use it without the battery. I often use my OM-2 without meter although I do have to have the batteries in it.

Rol_Lei Nut · Oct 28, 2011

CGW said:
That "future" is just around the corner as parts supplies for mechanicals dry up along with the expertise to repair them. Without either, longevity doesn't matter. Nice paperweights those old F and Pentax bodies...

It's quite simple:
1) Most mechanical cameras normally don't need new "parts" (apart from grease and foam every few decades), unless they get dropped or otherwise smashed.
2) When mechanical cameras do die, it's for a variety of reasons, so the "parts" cameras repairpersons keep handy can usually donate what's needed (unlike electronic cameras, where the "parts" camera probably died from the same electronic failure the camera to be repaired did).
3) Expertise... I rather quickly taught myself to do some fairly complicated repairs on mechanical cameras. I wouldn't even try to reverse-engineer a circuit board!
4) You evidently haven't used/handled many Nikon F or Spotmatic bodies (or a large number of other good mechanical cameras). Everytime I see one in a shop or flea market, I give it a quick check: the vast majority are in good working order (and my sample is probably well over on thousand). Most electronic cameras have a far lower percentage of "still-working" samples still around.

But if you choose to stick to your obviously deeply cherished beliefs despite empirical evidence and many people's real-life experience to the contrary, go ahead....

Steve Smith · Oct 28, 2011

Rol_Lei Nut said:
1) Most mechanical cameras normally don't need new "parts" (apart from grease and foam every few decades), unless they get dropped or otherwise smashed.

This is usually correct. I used the same logic last week when someone asked about repairing an old clock.

My answer was that all of the parts of the clock are still there and are very unlikely to have worn out or broken. The most likely cause of failure would be similar to cameras. i.e. lubrication getting too thick or gummed up with dust.

EDIT: I'm an electronic engineer but I would choose a mechanical solution to something every time.

Steve.

baachitraka · Oct 28, 2011

I do not know, why they did not build a spot meter in OM-1n ;-)

* OM-3(Ti) is rather expensive. :-(

CGW · Oct 28, 2011

Rol_Lei Nut said:
It's quite simple:
1) Most mechanical cameras normally don't need new "parts" (apart from grease and foam every few decades), unless they get dropped or otherwise smashed.
2) When mechanical cameras do die, it's for a variety of reasons, so the "parts" cameras repairpersons keep handy can usually donate what's needed (unlike electronic cameras, where the "parts" camera probably died from the same electronic failure the camera to be repaired did).
3) Expertise... I rather quickly taught myself to do some fairly complicated repairs on mechanical cameras. I wouldn't even try to reverse-engineer a circuit board!
4) You evidently haven't used/handled many Nikon F or Spotmatic bodies (or a large number of other good mechanical cameras). Everytime I see one in a shop or flea market, I give it a quick check: the vast majority are in good working order (and my sample is probably well over on thousand). Most electronic cameras have a far lower percentage of "still-working" samples still around.

But if you choose to stick to your obviously deeply cherished beliefs despite empirical evidence and many people's real-life experience to the contrary, go ahead....

Give it a rest.

Mechanicals break. Parts and repair resources are thinning out. Demand is miniscule for these services. Experienced repair personnel able willing and able to tackle mechanical camera jobs aren't getting any younger. Factory repair in many cases is long gone. Most people on this board are capable of DIY fixes but there are limits. I've owned/used my share of mechanical cameras but don't venerate them or see them as inherently superior--great in 1968 isn't axiomatically great in 2011. I like and use working cameras but fail to appreciate the endless moralizing about the superiority of mechanical cameras scarfed from flea markets. Functionality trumps sentimentality any day.

lxdude · Oct 28, 2011

CGW said:
That "future" is just around the corner as parts supplies for mechanicals dry up along with the expertise to repair them. Without either, longevity doesn't matter. Nice paperweights those old F and Pentax bodies...

An absurd statement. They are already 50+ year old designs, yet examples in good condition are fairly easy to find. Those and many others, some even older like SM Leicas, are in no danger of becoming paper weights as long as there's film to put in them. Mechanical parts seldom break in those old cameras; they gradually wear enough to affect precision, which will then require adjustment, but even that takes a long time. Parts supplies dried up long ago for most mechanical cameras, yet parts machines and even some NOS parts are still out there. Hell, lots of Speed Graphics are still being used, and repairs are still available.
I have several old fully mechanical cameras, all of which have functioning meters, but if a meter quit and couldn't be fixed I'd keep on using the camera.

lxdude · Oct 28, 2011

CGW said:
Give it a rest.

Mechanicals break. Parts and repair resources are thinning out. Demand is miniscule for these services. Experienced repair personnel able willing and able to tackle mechanical camera jobs aren't getting any younger. Factory repair in many cases is long gone. Most people on this board are capable of DIY fixes but there are limits. I've owned/used my share of mechanical cameras but don't venerate them or see them as inherently superior--great in 1968 isn't axiomatically great in 2011. I like and use working cameras but fail to appreciate the endless moralizing about the superiority of mechanical cameras scarfed from flea markets. Functionality trumps sentimentality any day.

You missed the point.

CGW · Oct 28, 2011

lxdude said:
An absurd statement. They are already 50+ year old designs, yet examples in good condition are fairly easy to find. Those and many others, some even older like SM Leicas, are in no danger of becoming paper weights as long as there's film to put in them. Mechanical parts seldom break in those old cameras; they gradually wear enough to affect precision, which will then require adjustment, but even that takes a long time. Parts supplies dried up long ago for most mechanical cameras, yet parts machines and even some NOS parts are still out there. Hell, lots of Speed Graphics are still being used, and repairs are still available.
I have several old fully mechanical cameras, all of which have functioning meters, but if a meter quit and couldn't be fixed I'd keep on using the camera.

What's absurd is believing in separate forms of gravity for apples and oranges which sums up your argument and others re: mechanical-vs-electronic. Friends restore and drive Eisenhower-era cars but only at great expense.None view them as more than toys or would insist they'd make acceptable daily rides. There's a far more lucrative repro/replica parts industry for cars than for cameras that reflects demand. Haven't seen much in the way of a repro camera parts market. NOS inventories aren't forever. Neither are skilled technicians. Shoot 'em while you can.

brucemuir · Oct 28, 2011

Actually I think Truman was in office when my "daily ride" was manufactured.

rolleiman · Oct 28, 2011

Thanks for the suggestions, I'll opt for the MR9 adapter method which I think will be cheaper in the long run. Although currently a Nikon user, I want to accquire a lighter system to carry around on foot, while still sticking with film. Don't want to part with my Nikon F & FM's though, they're just so reliable.

Re. the debate over electronic v mechanical, I'll go with the mechanical every time. The best of them hold their value better too. The digi stuff in particular, has built in obsolesence. My Nikon D1, cost over £3,000 nine years ago. Todays value?.....About £200...if you can find anyone who wants it!
My Nikon F......£95 s/h in nr. mint cond. in the 70's ......Todays value about £250-£300. Recenty had its FIRST service since I've had it, to have the mirror box foam replaced. All functions checked and found to be working perfectly, the shutter speeds were all well within tolerence.

That's what I call real quality!

lxdude · Oct 28, 2011

CGW said:
What's absurd is believing in separate forms of gravity for apples and oranges which sums up your argument and others re: mechanical-vs-electronic. Friends restore and drive Eisenhower-era cars but only at great expense.None view them as more than toys or would insist they'd make acceptable daily rides. There's a far more lucrative repro/replica parts industry for cars than for cameras that reflects demand. Haven't seen much in the way of a repro camera parts market. NOS inventories aren't forever. Neither are skilled technicians. Shoot 'em while you can.

As I said, you missed the point. You recommended an OM-2. Those came out not long after the OM-1. It isn't about which is more likely to fail, it's about which one can be fixed if it does. If an OM-2's electronics fail, the camera's done, unless a donor camera can be raided, and the replacement's lifespan will still be a question mark. If a spring breaks inside an OM-1 (or an OM-2 for that matter), a new one can be made from spring wire. Gears and levers can be made, easier than you may realize. No one's likely to be fabbing a microprocessor.

It's not about sentimentality over functionality for me. I have several electronic cameras, of different makes, in 35mm and 645. They offer some great capabilities, even to someone like me, who almost never uses AE or AF. But if I had to choose one camera to take into the middle of nowhere, it would be a fully mechanical one like my MX.

After all, both mechanical and electronic cameras have lots of mechanical parts, so mechanical failure can afflict either. Shutter parts on either are more likely to fail than slow speed gear trains. But if the electronics go, I lose all speeds but one and no way to repair it, except with my LX, which would give speeds at X-sync and higher.

Les Sarile · Oct 28, 2011

CGW said:
I like and use working cameras but fail to appreciate the endless moralizing about the superiority of mechanical cameras scarfed from flea markets. Functionality trumps sentimentality any day.

CGW said:
Shoot 'em while you can.

No moralizing just realizing! I say shoot them all and let the pics fall where they may. I used to have quite a few redundant bodies but soon realized they were not needed . . . unless maybe a black and chrome body

For full disclosure, I haven't quite gotten around to firing the Brownie but everything else is good to go!

Full size link -> Current tools

CGW · Oct 28, 2011

Les Sarile said:
No moralizing just realizing! I say shoot them all and let the pics fall where they may. I used to have quite a few redundant bodies but soon realized they were not needed . . . unless maybe a black and chrome body

For full disclosure, I haven't quite gotten around to firing the Brownie but everything else is good to go!

Full size link -> Current tools

You're a man among men, Les!

CGW · Oct 28, 2011

lxdude said:
As I said, you missed the point. You recommended an OM-2. Those came out not long after the OM-1. It isn't about which is more likely to fail, it's about which one can be fixed if it does. If an OM-2's electronics fail, the camera's done, unless a donor camera can be raided, and the replacement's lifespan will still be a question mark. If a spring breaks inside an OM-1 (or an OM-2 for that matter), a new one can be made from spring wire. Gears and levers can be made, easier than you may realize. No one's likely to be fabbing a microprocessor.

It's not about sentimentality over functionality for me. I have several electronic cameras, of different makes, in 35mm and 645. They offer some great capabilities, even to someone like me, who almost never uses AE or AF. But if I had to choose one camera to take into the middle of nowhere, it would be a fully mechanical one like my MX.

After all, both mechanical and electronic cameras have lots of mechanical parts, so mechanical failure can afflict either. Shutter parts on either are more likely to fail than slow speed gear trains. But if the electronics go, I lose all speeds but one and no way to repair it, except with my LX, which would give speeds at X-sync and higher.

I'm just not ready to shift into survivalist mode when there's still so much available. 35mm SLRs are a very "long tail" item with literally millions made and sold since the late 50s/early 60s. I'm not sure we'll need to horde donor cameras since film will likely pass or shrink to an intolerably narrow selection before our cameras conk out. The means to the end we love, images of all sorts, is bound to matter less as years pass. Rear view mirror or crystal ball, take your pick. I'm shooting fall colour this weekend in S. Ontario on E100GX with my Mamiya RB67 Pro S outfit. Let's fight no more, OK?

btaylor · Oct 28, 2011

Just to add to the chorus, I have also used the hearing aid batteries with a small bit of cardboard to secure them and they worked perfectly, were cheap and always easy to find. I also had an OM1n body modified to accept the silver battery. I had it done at the same time as a CLA (a good thing to do anyway) and I think it was something crazy cheap like $20 as the camera was apart anyway.

OM1n battery issue

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency