What is Olympus OM-1 about??

cliveh · Nov 13, 2014

wblynch said:
It's Better. A Leica can't even do 20% of what an OM-1 can do.

Rangefinders are fun but there are many reasons why they got overrun by SLR's 40 years ago.

Please pray tell this 80% advantage.

pdeeh · Nov 13, 2014

Ricardo Miranda said:
mistaken her for June Brown.

johnha · Nov 13, 2014

I'm a Pentax shooter, but when I started I was also looking at an OM10. A few years ago when I was looking for an OM10 (to see what might have been) I stumbled upon an OM-1MD. I'd heard this was one of the great cameras and bought it - meter not working - instead.

As a 30+yr old body the mechanics seem to work fine, but compared to my Pentax MX it feels a little less refined mechanically. The OM lenses are more compact than Pentax-M lenses, but the lens flange is further forward on the body (the lenses themselves are shorter but the body + lens are about the same size).

John.

wblynch · Nov 13, 2014

Advantage OM-1:

Through the lens focusing and composition

Depth of Field preview

Close focus and Macro capability

Ability to use long lenses and short lenses without accessory viewfinders. Infinite choices.

Ability to use Zoom lenses

No parallex error in viewfinder for composition or focusing

Snap-in interchangeable focus screens

Snap-on interchangeable film backs. 250 exposure back, Electronic data back

Motordrives and winders

Medical endscopic capabilities

Microscope capabilities

flavio81 · Nov 13, 2014

cliveh said:
I thought the Olympus OM was over rated and promoted by OTT advertising. It is not a Leica.

I have used an OM-1 and an OM-2 and i found them nice cameras, although I did not find the huge viewfinder a big plus, nor I found it better damped (in terms of mirror shock) than other cameras that are good in this regard such as the Nikon F3, Canon A-series, or Canon F-1. Some people claim that the OM had the better mirror damping of all SLRs, this is plainly a myth.

But the OM cameras were just fine. What i don't like too much about the OM system is that the lenses are so strikingly compact, compared to Canikoneicanoltazeiss, that it is logical that some performance will have to be lost due to "shrinking down the lens" -- be it vignetting, distortion, field flatness, etc etc. I think any optical designer would agree with me that compactness comes with a price to pay performance-wise.

I had checked some 70s lens test reports where they include OM lenses within the test groups and you could see how often the Olympus lenses were lagging in some department compared to Canon or Nikon or Leitz. Not the lenses in the 35 or 50mm range, which are usually as big as they need to be, but the wideangles and teles.

Yes, it is a compact camera but if i really really need compactness there is the Rollei 35.
Besides, as a happy RB67 shooter i must say... compactness is for wussies!!

cliveh · Nov 13, 2014

wblynch said:
Advantage OM-1:

Through the lens focusing and composition

Depth of Field preview

Close focus and Macro capability

Ability to use long lenses and short lenses without accessory viewfinders. Infinite choices.

Ability to use Zoom lenses

No parallex error in viewfinder for composition or focusing

Snap-in interchangeable focus screens

Snap-on interchangeable film backs. 250 exposure back, Electronic data back

Motordrives and winders

Medical endscopic capabilities

Microscope capabilities

But as with any SLR users have to have tunnel vision.

Xmas · Nov 13, 2014

Alan Gales said:
David Bailey was cool when swinging London was the hippest place on the planet. Olympus was wise choosing him as a spokesperson.

I was not impressed by any of the ads or David. I bought my OM2 and OM1 on personal recommendations of a chum who had a home made 7 inch Newton reflector and sidereal clock on his OM1. He said it was light and has mirror lockup.

Xmas · Nov 13, 2014

wblynch said:
Advantage OM-1:
(snip)
Snap-in interchangeable focus screens

Electronic data back

Screens really difficult to swap even with OEM tools.
Electronic back only with OM1n.

All the SLRs were the same cept for cost weight and volume. The system rangefinders were history by 73.

wblynch · Nov 13, 2014

cliveh said:
But as with any SLR users have to have tunnel vision.

Now let's do attach an external viewfinder to the OM-1 then you can see everything you wish. No tunnel restrictions.

Or my favorite, just lock the mirror, put on a 24mm or 28mm lens, zone focus and set to a good hyper focal aperture and shoot away from the hip. Sure, you can do that with most any camera but the OM-1 is as quiet as anything else.

Bottom line is you have so many options and capabilities with this one camera; you can choose which you like at any time.

That red dot sure is expensive for what little you get.

Ricardo Miranda · Nov 13, 2014

Electronic back only with OM1n.

Yeap, I was reading about it another day and the early recordata backs need a cable.

Xmas · Nov 13, 2014

flavio81 said:
I have used an OM-1 and an OM-2 and i found them nice cameras, although I did not find the huge viewfinder a big plus, nor I found it better damped (in terms of mirror shock) than other cameras that are good in this regard such as the Nikon F3, Canon A-series, or Canon F-1. Some people claim that the OM had the better mirror damping of all SLRs, this is plainly a myth.

But the OM cameras were just fine. What i don't like too much about the OM system is that the lenses are so strikingly compact, compared to Canikoneicanoltazeiss, that it is logical that some performance will have to be lost due to "shrinking down the lens" -- be it vignetting, distortion, field flatness, etc etc. I think any optical designer would agree with me that compactness comes with a price to pay performance-wise.

I had checked some 70s lens test reports where they include OM lenses within the test groups and you could see how often the Olympus lenses were lagging in some department compared to Canon or Nikon or Leitz. Not the lenses in the 35 or 50mm range, which are usually as big as they need to be, but the wideangles and teles.

...

beg to differ

You needed to try a Nikon F mirror.

It was the fast 5cm OMs that were limited in vignetting in test reports. The 35mm /2 is larger than a Nikon eg with a 55mm filter.

And no not all optic designs would. Eg the Konica 40mm had a patent double Gaussian enhancement for compactness.

Les Sarile · Nov 13, 2014

Xmas said:
Screens really difficult to swap even with OEM tools.
Electronic back only with OM1n.

All the SLRs were the same cept for cost weight and volume. The system rangefinders were history by 73.

I must be used to it as I don't even need the OEM tool to swap screens.

Electronic backs -> http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/technical/index.htm

wblynch · Nov 13, 2014

Xmas said:
Screens really difficult to swap even with OEM tools.
Electronic back only with OM1n.

All the SLRs were the same cept for cost weight and volume. The system rangefinders were history by 73.

I can change focus screens in seconds with a fingernail or toothpick. Very easy to do.

Electronic backs with pc connectors were available for OM-1 and 2. But yeah, better ones were offered for the later models. So spend $50 on a newer body, if you really need that.

Thats silly. All SLRs were never the same. That's what made them fun and gives us stuff to argue about even now.

flavio81 · Nov 14, 2014

Xmas said:
beg to differ

You needed to try a Nikon F mirror.

I own a Nikon F as well. Yes, it has mirror slap but once you do mirror-lock-up, the shutter itself is one of the most stable in history. So shutter shock should be considered. It was Celestron, if i recall correctly, the ones who tested many SLRs in the early 70s and found that the Nikon F shutter was the most stable of all, and thus they were recommending it for astrophotography.

The contemporary Nikkormat FT2, for example, has much more shutter shock compared to the Nikon F; comparison using mirror-lock-up. I owned one as well.

Now, regarding the Nikon F, you can't compare it to the OM-1 since the Nikon F is a 1959 design, the OM-1 is a 1972 design. By 1972 the Canon F-1 already had an excellent anti-mirror shock device. Can't comment on the Nikon F2 since i haven't tested one, but i'd expect it to be similar in this regard.

All in all i don't find any "unique" feature to the OM-1 except compactness.

Regarding my "compactness is for wussies" claim, i do think that Olympus, Maitani and his OM-1 are responsible for something very wrong in lenses after 1972 -- compactness and lightness above performance. Particularly, Canon brought the "New FD" line which were lenses that were noticeably more compact and light (obviously to follow the trend set by Olympus). The result? In some cases inferior performance to the previous FD line, and in all cases, less ruggedness and quality of materials.

flavio81 · Nov 14, 2014

wblynch said:
Thats silly. All SLRs were never the same. That's what made them fun and gives us stuff to argue about even now.

+1

Agree.

It is said that the camera is "just a box that holds the lens" and this is one of the most misleading mantras around...

I qualify SLRs on a many criterias, for me, the most important ones here:

- ability to keep the film flat on a plane (i.e. film rails width and precision; amount of extra guide rollers)
- precision of alignment between ground glass focus vs film plane focus
- shutter shock
- mirror shock
- clarity of the viewfinder screen and easiness to "nail" perfect focus
- shutter lag
- "feel" of the shutter button (i.e. travel, pressure required vs camera jerk, etc)
- "realness" of the viewfinder screen (the ability to show natural color balance, perfect corner sharpness, and to avoid introducing more artifacts to the image, and to avoid reducing the contrast)

Les Sarile · Nov 14, 2014

flavio81 said:
I own a Nikon F as well. Yes, it has mirror slap but once you do mirror-lock-up, the shutter itself is one of the most stable in history. So shutter shock should be considered. It was Celestron, if i recall correctly, the ones who tested many SLRs in the early 70s and found that the Nikon F shutter was the most stable of all, and thus they were recommending it for astrophotography.

The contemporary Nikkormat FT2, for example, has much more shutter shock compared to the Nikon F; comparison using mirror-lock-up. I owned one as well.

Now, regarding the Nikon F, you can't compare it to the OM-1 since the Nikon F is a 1959 design, the OM-1 is a 1972 design. By 1972 the Canon F-1 already had an excellent anti-mirror shock device. Can't comment on the Nikon F2 since i haven't tested one, but i'd expect it to be similar in this regard.

All in all i don't find any "unique" feature to the OM-1 except compactness.

Regarding my "compactness is for wussies" claim, i do think that Olympus, Maitani and his OM-1 are responsible for something very wrong in lenses after 1972 -- compactness and lightness above performance. Particularly, Canon brought the "New FD" line which were lenses that were noticeably more compact and light (obviously to follow the trend set by Olympus). The result? In some cases inferior performance to the previous FD line, and in all cases, less ruggedness and quality of materials.

The Nikon F's MLU of course is the most inconvenient implementation of all MLU capable bodies.
I also actually compared all the shutters of all the MLU capable bodies I have and remarkably enough found the Minolta XK to be the most quiet.
One of the unique aspects of the OM-1 was the near lifesize magnification of the viewfinder. Of course this is not useful for those who wear glasses as they usually prefer eye-relief which means much smaller magnification that Nikon implemented in most of their bodies.
Of course we now have a few decades to scrutinize the results of Maitani's miniaturization and to date there have been no quality issues found with with Zuiko glass as a result of this as shown by countless test results. Keep in mind that Leica glass are all typically "smaller" too and you would also be hard pressed to find any complaints on optical quality due to their size.
Most of the "inferior" reference was due to the incorporation of plastic and lighter material but not as a compromise to optical quality.

flavio81 said:
Yes, it is a compact camera but if i really really need compactness there is the Rollei 35.
Besides, as a happy RB67 shooter i must say... compactness is for wussies!!

And of course by your reasoning, the Rollei 35 will have been similarly compromised. Fortunately that is not the case.
Also keep in mind that this is the 35mm forum which means 35mm related posts and not that we don't use larger format.

Sometimes, 35mm equipment can be as heavy as larger format . . .

Les Sarile · Nov 14, 2014

Prices on Zuiko glass looks inline with competition as shown in this December 1975 Modern Photography magazine ad. I am sure variations can be attributed to region too.

Xmas · Nov 14, 2014

flavio81 said:
I own a Nikon F as well. Yes, it has mirror slap but once you do mirror-lock-up, the shutter itself is one of the most stable in history. So shutter shock should be considered. It was Celestron, if i recall correctly, the ones who tested many SLRs in the early 70s and found that the Nikon F shutter was the most stable of all, and thus they were recommending it for astrophotography.

The contemporary Nikkormat FT2, for example, has much more shutter shock compared to the Nikon F; comparison using mirror-lock-up. I owned one as well.

Now, regarding the Nikon F, you can't compare it to the OM-1 since the Nikon F is a 1959 design, the OM-1 is a 1972 design. By 1972 the Canon F-1 already had an excellent anti-mirror shock device. Can't comment on the Nikon F2 since i haven't tested one, but i'd expect it to be similar in this regard.

All in all i don't find any "unique" feature to the OM-1 except compactness.

Regarding my "compactness is for wussies" claim, i do think that Olympus, Maitani and his OM-1 are responsible for something very wrong in lenses after 1972 -- compactness and lightness above performance. Particularly, Canon brought the "New FD" line which were lenses that were noticeably more compact and light (obviously to follow the trend set by Olympus). The result? In some cases inferior performance to the previous FD line, and in all cases, less ruggedness and quality of materials.

Sigh

I can compare the OM1 with an F...

But you are correct the F2 has almost no vibration on the mirror up swing but a F2 system was rather more USD? You could get a used F system in 72 if you could hold it steady rather than a OM1.

And it is sophistry to blame Maitani for Canon problems eg when Pentax K M series follow on small lenses were to a good build standard. Size and build standard are independent.

OM1s were smaller, lighter and cheaper... that is three.

Think Chris Bonnington took two to Everest.

Alan Gales · Nov 14, 2014

Les Sarile said:
Prices on Zuiko glass looks inline with competition as shown in this December 1975 Modern Photography magazine ad. I am sure variations can be attributed to region too.

Those ads in the magazines were always cheaper than what you could get locally in the camera stores at least here in St. Louis. Sometimes lenses were $100.00 cheaper or more. That's a huge difference when a $400.00 lens cost $300.00. Back then I figured they must be grey market. I don't know if I was right or not.

Some (not all) of those camera stores in the magazines had really bad reputations for ripping off people.

Les Sarile · Nov 14, 2014

Alan Gales said:
Some (not all) of those camera stores in the magazines had really bad reputations for ripping off people.

Bait and switch happened then . . .

Old-N-Feeble · Nov 14, 2014

Les Sarile said:
Bait and switch happened then . . .

RE Bate and Switch: I bought one of the first OM1 MD bodies to enter the USA. It was advertised with Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 and 75-150mm and 35-70mm lenses. The ad was a bit deceptive because the zoom lenses were cheap non-Zuiko junk. I gave away the lousy zooms and later bought genuine Zuiko optics. I loved that camera but never dealt with that magazine dealer again.

wblynch · Nov 14, 2014

Those Brooklyn stores were famous for pulling half the goods out of the box. Sending you the body with no caps, no case, no strap.....

And even swapping the factory lens for a lesser no-name one.

I never trusted them. Still don't. I only trust Adorama and B&H. Beach Camera is sometimes OK.

Old-N-Feeble · Nov 14, 2014

That's it!! It was Brooklyn Camera Exchange that I bought from all those years ago. Hah!! The SOBs.

M Carter · Nov 15, 2014

I had an Olympus with that big metal motor drive. I really liked what a beast it was.

On mine, the shutter button wasn't linked to the drive - there was a tall column on the drive with its own button. Took me FOREVER to remember to use the drive button...

blockend · Nov 15, 2014

I bought an OM1 in 1978. IIRC I paid about £180 with 50mm 1.8 which was cheaper than the equivalent Nikkormat combo. It was a great camera and I used it till the mid-1980s. The only thing I didn't like was it didn't feel as rugged as the Nikons, which mattered if you took a camera everywhere and was none too careful how it was treated. I felt it needed the never-ready case, which is why I replaced it with a Nikon F.

The issue with plastic lenses never materialized, the world is swamped in Canon FDn glass, and they're still going strong, just as almost every AF lens since has survived.

What is Olympus OM-1 about??

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency