What is Olympus OM-1 about??

[TheToadMen]

Hi,
I'm a Nikon camera user for 135 format for several years now. I never used Canon or Olympus. My first camera was a used Nikon EL2, given to me by my aunt when I was 18 (about 39 years ago) so I sticked to Nikon.

But I know GAS sometimes and I want to know what other cameras are about. So I go me a Canon AE-1 last year with 2 lenses ($25) and a Canon T70 ($20) with a 50 mm lens recently to toy around. I always had in mind to get me an Olympus to see what that is about. I heard good things about Olympus and use a very good Olympus Mju II as a point and shoot camera.

Today a fellow at the photo club was selling/giving away some old gear for a friend. So I got me a Olympus OM-1 with 50 mm f/1,8 F.Zuiko Auto-s, a Panagor Auto Wide Angle 28 mm f/2.5 and a Panagor Auto Tele 135 mm f/2.8 and a camera case for only $13.
The camera has a big ding on the right corner of the top/back and the prism glass has some edge separation. But the camera seems to work properly, so it will be a nice camera to use an Olympus for just a few bucks to me. I don't need autofocus, I like prime lenses and a light meter in a SLR is nice too.

What I wanted to ask is: what is Olympus about? And is this the right model and lens to use (in general) from Olympus from this aera or the OM-series?

Thanks,
Bert from Holland

 

[MattKing]

The OM-1 was revolutionary for its time. It was a lot smaller than most of the competing models, it offered a great viewfinder and it was introduced as part of a complete system. The system featured smaller lenses as well, and was particularly strong in the close-up and photomicrography (sp?) world.

Do you have an OM-1, an OM-1 MD or an OM-1n?

The prism edge separation may actually be a problem with deteriorating foam in the prism - not good.

The 50mm f/1.8 can be very good. Check to make sure the aperture is snappy.

The OM-1 uses a no longer available 625 mercury battery. There are a few workarounds to deal with that, or you can have the camera adapted for silver oxide replacements.

I started with an OM-1 in 1975. I've traded and replaced bodies and lenses over the years, but whenever I grab my OM cameras I am freshly amazed at how nice they are to use.

 

[pdeeh]

If it feels good in the hand, you'll want to buy it and use it. If a camera offends with its ugliness and feels like a lump in your hand, you won't.

I have a couple of dozen cameras but my most-used ones are my XA and my OM-1n - because they just feel "right", and they look beautiful.

Other people feel the same about their Leicas, their Hasselblads, their Nikons ... and so on.

 

[TheToadMen]

Hi Matt,
The top plate says: OM-1. Serial number is 575437. There is a Varta V625PX battery inside.
If I was to get me a nice looking and good working model to shoot with, what model would you recommend?
Thanks,
Bert

EDIT: There is a small label "MD" next to the lens mount as well. didn't see that until I removed the halfcase from the body. What does MD means: "Motor Drive"?

 

[snapguy]

Nikon vs. Oly

I was a Nikon guy back in the day when the Nikon F was the go-to camera for a whale of a lot of news photographers. I am still a Nikon guy, plus a lot of other brands including Rolleiflex and Yashicamat. I knew a fellow news photog who embraced the Olympus OM-1 back in the Nikon era. He liked it because it was very quiet and the Nikon F with the original motor drive was quite noisy. He would use it on movie and TV sets without any problems. It is small and has a great viewfinder and the glass fabulous. If you saw his news photos from the 1960s including the SLA shootout in El Lay, the Olympics, Ronald Reagan as Ca Gov., lots of movie stars and so on, you could not tell the difference from similar photos taken with the Nikon F. It ain't the box, it's the eye.

 

[TheToadMen]

My camera looks just like this one:

 

[Alan Gales]

Back in the day Olympus cameras were very popular and especially popular with photographers with small hands. A lot of women bought Olympus because of their size and ergonomics. The cameras were unusual in that you changed your shutter speeds with a ring on the lens. The advantage was that you could easily change your shutter speed without taking your eye from the camera. The disadvantage was that it made each lens more expensive. Olympus lenses were very good and compare favorably to the Nikon lenses you are used to using. Olympus was a great system but of course not near as extensive as Nikon.

Back in the 80's I sold cameras at a department store. We sold Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax and Olympus. I used to shoot Contax myself but I have shot other brands of 35mm cameras as well. It can be fun shooting different models. If you know what you are doing you can get great results from any brand.

 

[frank]

Back in the day Olympus cameras were very popular and especially popular with photographers with small hands. A lot of women bought Olympus because of their size and ergonomics. The cameras were unusual in that you changed your shutter speeds with a ring on the lens. The advantage was that you could easily change your shutter speed without taking your eye from the camera.The disadvantage was that it made each lens more expensive. Olympus lenses were very good and compare favorably to the Nikon lenses you are used to using. Olympus was a great system but of course not near as extensive as Nikon.

Back in the 80's I sold cameras at a department store. We sold Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax and Olympus. I used to shoot Contax myself but I have shot other brands of 35mm cameras as well. It can be fun shooting different models. If you know what you are doing you can get great results from any brand.

All good info except the underlined text. The shutter speed ring is on the camera around the lens mount, not the lens. So if Olympus lenses are more expensive, that's not the reason why. Nikkormats have their shutter speed ring in the same location.

 

[MattKing]

My camera looks just like this one:
View attachment 97527

That is an OM-1 MD.

The absolute very first versions of the camera were actually badged "M-1", but Leica raised a ruckus.

So the camera became the OM-1.

The initial manufacturing run of OM-1s did not include the full linkage for the motor drive accessory. Purchasers were invited to send their cameras for factory modification in order to add that linkage. Olympus was surprised at the high percentage of cameras that were being sent for that modification - they decided to include the linkage in subsequent production runs, and to label all of those cameras "OM-1 MD".

The motor drives were high power, high end professional accessories. There are also lower cost motor winders more suited to the amateur user that use the same linkage.

If the opening on the bottom of the camera for the linkage still has its cover don't take it off - they can be stubbornly difficult to put back on, and are easily lost.

Unless the meter circuit has been modified for that battery, it may not meter accurately.

EDIT: If you would like to read more: http://olympus.dementix.org/Hardware/olympus_hw.html

 

[baachitraka]

CLA if you want. I have 3 OM-1n and zuikos are great.

 

[baachitraka]

Do not worry about the meter. I had it converted to take 1.5v but I use hand-held meter all the time.
I find shutter speed ring location kind of easy to access.

 

[horacekenneth]

I have an Olympus OM-1n that was just smaller and more comfortable than any other slr I'd used until some salty sea breeze jammed it up.

 

[grahamp]

I came to Olympus via a Voigtlander Bessamatic, so having all the controls around the lens made sense. I have to admit that I don't use it as much these days. As my eyes age I find I am using larger formats more. One thing about the Olympus cameras is that they have a softer sound than many. The mirror is well-damped (or locked up if you like on the OM-1), and the horizontal cloth shutter does not have the 'ping' sound that you get with metal vertical travel shutters sometimes.

I used a Winder 2 for about a year because of tendon trouble with my right thumb. It did the job, but using a power winder for a single frame seemed ostentatious!

 

[mopar_guy]

The original OM-1 has only a battery chamber on the bottom plate. There is no motor drive cover between the battery chamber and the tripod socket unless the camera has been modified to accept a motor drive.

The OM-1 MD came from the factory ready for motor drive use. There is a motor drive socket next to the battery chamber, and there is usually a small emblem on the front of the camera with the letters "MD".

The OM-1N has the letter "N" on the top plat so that it is labeled "OM-1N".

The controls for exposure are extremely simple to use. With the camera cradled in your left hand, and your right hand grasps the camera with your finger on the shutter release. The shutter speed control is around the lens mount similar to a Nikkormat. The aperture ring on the lens is generally just forward of the focusing ring on the lens. Withe the thumb and middle finger of your left hand you can change shutters speeds, and with the thumb and index finger of your left hand you can change the aperture. Lenses focus in the opposite direction as Nikon. You can with practice know what shutter speed has been set by feeling the shutter speed ring. Turning the shutter speed control and the aperture ring two clicks in the same direction will give an exposure of the same exposure value, but will alter the depth of field. With practice and experience, you will know what the shutter speed settings and aperture settings are without having to look at the controls and you never have to take you eye off of the viewfinder.

 

[Les Sarile]

What I wanted to ask is: what is Olympus about? And is this the right model and lens to use (in general) from Olympus from this aera or the OM-series?
Thanks,
Bert from Holland

Olympus was always about making a smaller camera without sacrificing build quality.

A sampling below of the size of cameras when the Olympus SLRs were released.

Nikons - specifically the Nikkormats, had shutter speed controls on the lens mount long before Olympus released the OM-1.

The OM1&2 had the largest viewfinder magnification which is particularly great if you don't wear glasses - shorter eye relief, then the Nikons. However, none of the Olympus OM series shows the aperture in the viewfinder.

More can be read at http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/index.htm

 

[erikg]

Wow, that Ricoh is a beast.

 

[Alan Gales]

All good info except the underlined text. The shutter speed ring is on the camera around the lens mount, not the lens. So if Olympus lenses are more expensive, that's not the reason why. Nikkormats have their shutter speed ring in the same location.

Thank's for the correction, Frank. My memory failed me on that one.

It was said back in the day that Olympus lenses were a bit expensive due to this design for some reason. I remember reading it in either Modern Photography or Popular Photography magazine.

 

[Les Sarile]

Also, not only were the OM series bodies smaller, but their lenses were too as shown in a small sampling below.

The Pentax M series lenses were smaller than the K versions as part of their M series bodies. The Pentax MX was even smaller than the Olympus OM-1.

 

[ciniframe]

Had them from shortly after they came out and still it's my preferred full frame SLR (I also have a Pen F system). Started out with a Miranda D, another small SLR and mine had interchangeable focusing screens as well a viewfinders. That is where I learned that I liked plain matte screens without any focusing aids so that was a requirement for any future SLR. I think the Nikon F is a tougher camera and will probably operate for more cycles than an OM-1 but I have never been a professional and don't put near enough film through my OM bodies to wear them out. I personally think they are a camera that is the SLR version of a Leica M, compact, bright and quiet.

 

[lxdude]

All good info except the underlined text. The shutter speed ring is on the camera around the lens mount, not the lens. So if Olympus lenses are more expensive, that's not the reason why. Nikkormats have their shutter speed ring in the same location.

Right. At the time, Nikkor lenses were actually significantly more expensive than other Japanese brands' lenses, with few exceptions.

 

[hdeyong]

When I started out in photography, in the late 70's, I used a Nikon FM and an Olympus OM1. Later on, I sold them to go digital, and then, about 7 years ago, wanted to get back into film again. Having had both the Nikon and the Olympus, I decided to get back into Olympus. I simply like them better, they're lighter, the lenses are great, and many of them use the same size, 49mm, filters, which is convenient. I have found them dependable, and even have a perfectly working OM40.
I use the lenses on my digital body with an adapter, and they'e excellent. The 24mm f2.8 is a beautiful 38mm on a crop sensor.
I've used other brands that friends own, and the Oly's are still my favourite, it's just a matter of personal preference.

 

[wiltw]

The cameras were unusual in that you changed your shutter speeds with a ring on the lens. The advantage was that you could easily change your shutter speed without taking your eye from the camera. The disadvantage was that it made each lens more expensive.

The shutter speed ring was on the BODY, not on any OM lens! So there was no increase in lens cost due to location of the shutter speed selection.
And whether you changed shutter speed with a ring concentric to the lens, or on top of the body (as was found on most focal plane shutter SLRs), you could change shutter speed without removing your eye from the camera.

 

[Alan Gales]

The shutter speed ring was on the BODY, not on any OM lens! So there was no increase in lens cost due to location of the shutter speed selection.
And whether you changed shutter speed with a ring concentric to the lens, or on top of the body (as was found on most focal plane shutter SLRs), you could change shutter speed without removing your eye from the camera.

Thanks. I guess you missed it but Frank all ready corrected me on this. My memory failed me once again. I do remember reading in Modern Photography or Popular Photography magazine back in the day that Olympus lenses cost more to produce due to the shutter speed ring being on the front of the camera. I don't remember if it said the reason why. The information may have been inaccurate. I don't know.

I remember the Zeiss and Leitz lenses being the most expensive followed by the Nikkors. Olympus lenses were more expensive then comparable Canon, Minolta and Pentax lenses though.

Yes, I agree that you can change the shutter speed on a camera without removing your eye from the viewfinder on other cameras but on the Olympus it is much more convenient to do so. This was a feature which was hawked back in the day.

 

[Hilo]

Hi, also from The Netherlands !

I got my first OM1 in 1978, and my last about 10 years ago, still use it together with the OM4Ti. It's got a Beattie screen installed and the meter was adjusted to that. The added brightness and the higher magnification: it's like visiting the cinema.

The shutter speed on the body around the lens mount is a big deal. Still today I can never get used to change the shutter speed in a different way (zit er ingebakken, Bert)

The needle metering is among the very best of any camera. Large and visible, and so responsive.

I have had the Zuiko 40/2 on it for so many years - I am not sure if it will come off. Beautiful, small combination. A friend repairman modified my last OM1 (drilled a hole ) to accept the small grip for the OM4Ti (and OM3Ti), which makes a lot of difference.

My Om4Ti's began giving me problems, the electronics. In my search for a replacement, I have looked at other brands, in particular the Pentax LX and some Minolta's. I do think that some of these cameras and their lenses were better built than the OM cameras and their lenses. In terms of silent shutter sound, smooth aperture rings, electronics, etc.

If I were you, I would invest in a well treated OM1 body, have it serviced and modified to current batteries. It will still be way cheaper than anything modern with comparable quality and you will have a classic to work with.

 

[wiltw]

Thanks. I guess you missed it but Frank all ready corrected me on this.

I read Frank's reply and tried to edit my post, but APUG is not responsive to the 'edit' button to post the desired changes?!