Vintage Classic Cameras:The Unvarnished Truth Olympus OM SLRS, Part 1: The M-1, OM-1,

Vintage Classic Cameras, The Unvarnished Truth
Olympus OM SLRS, Part 1: The M-1, OM-1, OM-1MD, and OM-1n

By Jason Schneider

Back in 1967 Olympus decided to create a full frame (24 x 36mm format) 35mm SLR to complement its very successful Pen F system of half-frame (18 x 24mm format) SLRs that had debuted in 1963. Many within the company suggested that the easiest and least costly path was offering a rebranded product made by another manufacturer. However, the renowned chief camera designer of Olympus, Maitani Yoshihisa (last name first per Japanese custom), fought hard to convince them that the best strategy was to design and build a truly unique product in house. Finally, after a yearlong struggle, he carried the day. His concept: a revolutionary ultra-compact SLR that was as durable and capable as the bulky, hefty pro SLRs of the day, such as the Nikon FTn Photomic. Over the next 4 years he relentlessly pressed his staff to create a pro-spec camera that was 20% smaller and 50% lighter than the Nikon and incorporated a shutter capable of 100,000 actuations. The result, unveiled at Photokina 1972, was initially named the Olympus M-1 in honor of Maitani, but after a very small production run, it was renamed the OM-1 to assuage complaints by E. Leitz Wetzlar, maker of the famed M-series Leicas.

rs=w:1440,h:1440

Original Olympus M-1 unveiled in 1972 soon became the OM-1.

rs=w:1440,h:1440

Olympus M-1 in chrome with 50mm f/1.4 G. Zuiko lens.

On first impression the Olympus OM-1 seems to be an elegantly scaled down version of a traditional SLR, and it certainly incorporates some time-proven elements. These include a horizontal travel focal plane shutter with rubberized cloth curtains, a manual, center-the-needle metering system employing 2 CdS cells, one on either side of the eyepiece, that read directly off the focusing screen at maximum aperture, and a mechanical meter cross-coupling system that uses an intricate series of coupling cords.

However, when you look closer, it’s clear that the OM-1 is a lot more than a downsized conventional 35mm SLR. The knob on top where the shutter-speed dial is usually found is the film speed dial, and it has a lock to prevent accidental mis-setting. The actual 1-1/000 sec plus B shutter dial is concentric with the lens mount (like a Nikkormat) and it couples to the speed control cam stack (which controls the slit width, the pallet engagement and the retard engagement) that’s located beneath the mirror box to save space and lower the height of the pentaprism. The reflex mirror itself is oversized to prevent image cutoff with lenses up through the Olympus 800mm telephoto, and it incorporates an air-damping piston-type shock absorber to reduce noise and vibration, the first in a 35mm SLR. The shutter itself uses special thin high tensile strength fabric cords to connect the shutter curtains rather than ribbons to save space while enhancing durability. One could go on for many pages detailing all the ingenious space saving stratagems to be found in the OM-1, but you now have some idea why it took over 4 years to design the camera that ignited the ultracompact 35mm SLR revolution of the ‘70s.

Other notable OM-1 features: 11 interchangeable viewing screens removed through the open lens mount; standard screen is matte with split-image rangefinder and microprism collar; pentaprism viewfinder shows 97% of actual picture field plus meter needle; ratchet type wind lever operates in a single 150-degree stroke or several shorter strokes; double exposure prevention with override, self-zeroing additive exposure counter; rewind crank and hinged back; ASA settings 25-1600. The camera measures an incredibly compact 5-3/8 x 3-1/4 x 3-3/16 inches and weighs a mere 24.0 ounces with standard 50mm f/1.8 F. Zuiko lens. NOTE: All Olympus OM-1 models including the OM-1. OM-1 MD, and OM-1n are designed to use discontinued 1.35v (PX625 or equivalent) mercury batteries and must be modified by installing a diode to give accurate meter readings with currently available 1.5v alkaline or silver-oxide batteries of the same size. Any well-equipped camera repair outfit can do this job for about $50, and if you’re reasonably handy you can do it yourself for about half that amount.

rs=w:1440,h:1440

Rare black Olympus M-1 courtesy FilmPhotograph.com

rs=w:1440,h:1440

Rare gold finished Olympus OM-1 with custom covering, courtesy CameraQuest

Olympus M-1: According to Olympus 52,000 bodies bearing the M-1 logo on top were produced before the name was changed, making them relatively uncommon, but not super-rare. What is super rare is a factory black M-1—it’s said only 25 of them were made, and you may rest assured they fetch a pretty penny. Bottom line: If you’re a user collector who wants to tote something more distinctive and conversational than a run-of-the-mill OM-1, you can indulge yourself by acquiring an M-1 for $225-400 (chrome body with 50mm f/1.8 or f.1.4 Zuko lens) a premium of about $50-100 over the standard issue OM-1. No, it won’t accept a motor drive without modification, but then you wouldn’t want to modify an original classic M-1 anyway.

rs=w:1440,h:1440

Olympus OM-1 with 50mm f/1.8 F. Zuiko lens

Olympus OM-1: The oldest OM-1 bodies dating from 1973 would not accept the Olympus OM Motor Drive 1—the bottom cover had to be replaced, an MD switch added to allow the motor to be mounted, and the entire slow speed governor plus some brass speed-governing cams had to be replaced. With newer ‘old-style’ OM-1 bodies you only had to add the MD switch, a new bottom cover, and calibrate the switch. Bottom line: An original OM-1 is fine choice so long as motor drive compatibility is not important to you, but if you ever plan to add one of these beautifully designed ultra-compact accessories in the future, go for an OM-1MD or an OM-1n, either of which will accept the motor without modification. OM-1 cameras in clean functional condition with 50mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4 Zuiko lenses are currently available in the $100-200 price range but you can occasionally snag one for less than 100 bucks. Black OM-1s are less common than chrome models but they’re currently priced similarly or perhaps slightly higher.

rs=w:1440,h:1440

Black Olympus OM-1 with 50mm f/1.4 G. Zuiko lens

rs=w:1440,h:1440

Olympus OM-1MD with 50mm f/1.8 F. Zuiko lens, MD logo on rewind side.

Olympus OM-1MD: In 1974 Olympus brought forth the OM-1MD, which, as its name implies, is an OM-1 that accepts an Olympus motor drive directly without requiring any modifications. This version usually has a small “MD” on the front and a small slot with a circular cover on the bottom that covers the motor drive coupling. The MD logo is located on the front of the body, either as a small plastic escutcheon near the bottom on the rewind side of the camera, or a sticker placed higher up on the other side, directly below the shutter release. Sometimes the MD logo is absent entirely, either because it fell off or was never applied at the factory. Bottom line: At prices generally ranging from $100-275 depending on lens and condition, the OM-1MD is a good choice for OM-1 lovers that require motor drive compatibility, but the OM-1n may be even better. But remember, when it comes to buying user-collectible classics, functionality and condition are everything—the specific model is less important so long as it has the features you need.

rs=w:1440,h:1440

Olympus OM-1MD body with MD sticker on front below shutter release.

rs=w:1440,h:1440

Olympus OM-1 in chrome with 50mm f/1.8 F. Zuiko lens.

rs=w:1440,h:1440

Black Olympus OM-1n body.

Olympus OM-1n: The final iteration of the OM-1, it’s quite similar to the OM-1MD but it adds a redesigned film advance lever, a flash ready/ exposure confirmation LED in the finder, and automatic X sync regardless of the position of the FP/X switch when it’s used in conjunction with a T-series Olympus flash unit mounted on a Flash Shoe 4. It’s easily identifiable by an OM-1n logo on the top plate. While the original OM-1 isn’t unreliable, some of the early models did experience problems when subjected to hard use by pros and Olympus steadily incorporated mechanical upgrades to enhance their reliability. Some of these are found in the OM-1MD, but all of them wound up in the OM-1n. Bottom line: The OM-1n is probably the best choice for OM-1 fans seeking a manual metering ultracompact analog SLR that’s a reliable everyday shooter. If you’re into spare no expense vintage glitz, there were various Olympus OM-1 and OM-1n cameras finished in gold and with exotic coverings including snakeskin and red leather. While the price of normal chrome or black OM-1n models have escalated in recent years to $100-250 depending on lens and cosmetics, they still represent good value fir the money. The fact that these classics are complemented by an extensive system of high-quality lenses and accessories that are readily available at affordable prices is a substantial part of their enduring appeal.
 
Soon after my trying the Pen-F and Pen-FT, out came the OM-1. I decided to "go see" and the demo was jammed! Enough said. Later had the Pentax MX which actually was too small for my small hands! Magnum had some and they gave up after a few years, for not being Not being reliable. Don't send hate mail! I love my digital Oly! Same here at different photographers and newspapers. The survivors now old obviously are great!
 
Like many new products, Olympus had some problems with reliability. I bought my first two Nikons from a couple of friends who wanted the new OM-1. They sold the Nikons cheap at the time but within a year and a half both of them had returned to Nikons because they had problems with the OMs jamming.

Olympus also had a publicity field day when United Press International announced they were switching from Nikons to the new OMs. I met a UPI photographer at a bowl game sometime thereafter and he was using Nikon FMs. He said UPI was having reliability problems with the OMs and he personally refused to use them, preferring to buy his own Nikon gear and use it instead.

But to be fair, Nikon had its share of problems later on with the F3. I had one of the first sold in the US and it was so poorly sealed against moisture it would shut down in a heavy fog. Nikon fixed that later own but there were lots of complaints from pros about those first F3 bodies. Speaking of the FM, it had some early jamming problems with the motor drives. By the way, I used Olympus 4/3 and the early Micro 4/3 cameras in the 2000s. I loved the standard 4/3 bodies and lenses, a little less so the Micro 4/3.
 
But to be fair, Nikon had its share of problems later on with the F3. I had one of the first sold in the US and it was so poorly sealed against moisture it would shut down in a heavy fog. Nikon fixed that later own but there were lots of complaints from pros about those first F3 bodies. Speaking of the FM, it had some early jamming problems with the motor drives.

Note that the FM was never marketed as a professional camera, unlike the OM-1/2/4 cameras.

As for the F3, yes, you're correct. The F3 I consider a delicate camera. Not on the mechanics, which are great, but the electronics, or at least the first years of production. I've witnessed meters die for no reason at all (one of such F3 with a sudden meter failure was mine.)
 
And a picture of someone using it professionally.

AVvXsEgStBYSc4EAYA3mpeU7bQWUXWsVh2e1RroRRqCnWykeL6cKEgJefhZJbhXOf5r9lhiEbocmaQKQl6AUZsxFIJb36sMNYK4h6j72BXCwegrfNSipqKwXnImZXWh4TANXhcR7sGo4n7zNCXOwHF8LgzeIvI_CjkfkpW5nF-jktcP8JZ8plR8aIVW92mGm=s650


I see a man that doesn't trust his OM meters and thus has to carry a Gossen Luna Pro... Which is a relatively heavy meter.

Jokes aside the OM cameras are fine, I had a OM-2 for some time and quite liked it. They are, however, overrated by people who (i guess) have had not much experience with other camera brands and models, and believe the hype created by Olympus '70s marketing. Nowadays I use the Pentax MX and ME Super whenever i want to carry lighter weight.
 
Longtime OM fan here, and before that Pen F user. The weight savings over then current offerings sold me. That and the big bright viewfinder and interchangeable screens. With any new body I always installed a 1-10 screen, all matte w/grid. Never had problems with my OM-1 cameras except for one body started to overlap frames, fixed by an out of warranty Olympus repair. And once a curtain string came off the pulley, again repaired by Olympus back in the day when they were still in the film camera business. Have sent one to John Hermanson, it was quite worn but it came back working perfectly and converted to SO batteries. Still have a basic assortment of Zuiko primes, from 24mm f2.8 to a 200mm f5 and a modest Pen F kit put together in the late 90’s. A brief foray into Leica M only reminded me how much I like TTL viewing/focusing and even with the prism hump and mirror box a OM body volume is no larger than the M4-2. (But the CV 35mm f2.5 and 21mm f4 were fantastic and why I hesitated to sell that kit for so long.)
 
Where does the Olympus FTL fit into this narrative? It was a conventional-size SLR, more me-too than the OMs, but it still seemed like an in-house design. Olympus never advertised it very heavily and after they started hyping “the cameras of Maitani” they seemed to encourage forgetting about it entirely…
 
Where does the Olympus FTL fit into this narrative? It was a conventional-size SLR, more me-too than the OMs, but it still seemed like an in-house design. Olympus never advertised it very heavily and after they started hyping “the cameras of Maitani” they seemed to encourage forgetting about it entirely…

The rumours have it that it was Minolta behind the production and distribution of the FTL. Also, there is a rumour that Minolta was also involved with the development of the OTF meter in the OM2.
 
Also, there is a rumour that Minolta was also involved with the development of the OTF meter in the OM2.

I remember those rumors... something about Minolta agreeing to share its OTF metering IP in exchange for Olympus sharing its TTL flash IP? All I know about it was that the Minolta CLE was pretty amazing in both departments...
 
I believe in an interview of Maitani (no, I don’t have a reference) that he said the FTL was developed in house. Of course that still doesn’t mean they didn’t farm out it’s production. It sure was an odd duck, M42 mount with open aperture metering with the Olympus lenses but would also stop down meter with other M42 mount lenses. If memory serves they only made about 6 primes from 28mm to 200mm, no zooms or other lenses. Wouldn’t be surprised if Pen FT and FV production was wound down and discontinued by 1970 or so and the OM platform was taking longer to develop than expected so they came up with a ‘fill in’ full frame as place holder to keep Olympus in the game, so to speak, until the OM system was ready to start shipping in volume.
Olympus introduced OM with 30 lenses or so right from the start and an extensive macro capability. With the Pen F the lenses had dribbled in over the years from 1963 to 1967.
The half frame viewfinder cameras continued on in low volume until 1982-3 but all were auto only, nothing that interested me. I still have a early Sanko Shoji manufactured Pen viewfinder camera. From the serial number made in March/April of 1960, and it works!
 

I remember when the OM-1 was introduced and the sensation that it created. I even remember some of the magazine ads for it from the time. …

Yes! The OM-1 introduction was a sensation and the full page ads were seductive - showing that big bright viewfinder and the clean shiny lines of that camera. I think these cameras had a profound effect on camera design - Pentax even went to the smaller M series.

Only in the last seven years or so did I finally buy an OM-1n and OM-2n. However, it wasn’t until then that I realized most of their lenses were f/2.8 and f/2; faster ones being the 50mm primes. That’s not really a problem, but it was something I wasn’t aware of.

Click image for larger version  Name:	F8E925F5-7A47-4B63-9E29-2D167E65AD24.jpg Views:	0 Size:	330.6 KB ID:	4764665
 
Back when anything film related was dirt cheap I was gifted an OM10 and was intrigued by it. The add-on manual shutter speed controller was a bit klutzy. I decided to delve into the system a bit further, eventually winding up with OM1, OM2n, OMG/OM20, OMF/OM30, and OM-PC/OM40 bodies to go with the OM10. A wide array of lenses and accessories were incorporated into the kit also. Then I finally got around to using the darn things. I could never get over the fact that the shutter speeds were on a control ring instead of a lever ring like the Nikkormat. I was constantly unlocking the lens from the mount when trying to make exposure adjustments. Four different hot shoe mounts? Something else to screw up when getting ready for a day of photography. Eventually I just quite using the system, and went back to Nikon. About the only thing I can agree on with most everyone else was that big viewfinder, but the downfall there was a lack of displayed information in some models. The OM1 had a lousy meter; OM2n I used the most; OMG was a big improvement on the OM10 but by then I was already tired of using the system; the mirror fell out of the OMF; and the OM-PC I gave away because it just did not work right. I was really hoping I'd get along well with the OM system, but there were more cons than pros in my experience.

PF
 
Back when anything film related was dirt cheap ..

Those were the days... a black OM1 with the 50f1.4 for £15. An OM4 body for £9. Check the prices now!!

The OM1 had a lousy meter; OM2n I used the most;

I can't think of another 1972 camera with better meter - it way pretty typical of that time. I also used the OM2 the most (and still do), never bonded with the double digit OM although they were not bad models (and could mount the same lenses and accessories) and I still like the OM4 although push come to shove I wouldkeep the OM2.

Olympus, Nikon and Minolta are the only systems I currently use (I also have my EOS5 bought from new). I wouldn't compare one against the other. Maybe that made a lot of sense for the pros back then when they were tailoring their equipment to fit their work but for a hobbist like me these systems have so much to offer.
 
How does such small, light camera handle shutter vibration? Back fifteen or so years ago, I had one of these cameras (OM1n) come into the house, still sealed in plastic bag in box. Ha, ha, couldn't bring myself to break the seal. I ended up flipping for a small profit. Hmm, wonder if it ever got used.
 
Back when anything film related was dirt cheap I was gifted an OM10 and was intrigued by it. The add-on manual shutter speed controller was a bit klutzy. I decided to delve into the system a bit further, eventually winding up with OM1, OM2n, OMG/OM20, OMF/OM30, and OM-PC/OM40 bodies to go with the OM10. A wide array of lenses and accessories were incorporated into the kit also. Then I finally got around to using the darn things. I could never get over the fact that the shutter speeds were on a control ring instead of a lever ring like the Nikkormat. I was constantly unlocking the lens from the mount when trying to make exposure adjustments. Four different hot shoe mounts? Something else to screw up when getting ready for a day of photography. Eventually I just quite using the system, and went back to Nikon. About the only thing I can agree on with most everyone else was that big viewfinder, but the downfall there was a lack of displayed information in some models. The OM1 had a lousy meter; OM2n I used the most; OMG was a big improvement on the OM10 but by then I was already tired of using the system; the mirror fell out of the OMF; and the OM-PC I gave away because it just did not work right. I was really hoping I'd get along well with the OM system, but there were more cons than pros in my experience.

PF

Have used the OM-1 for 47 years, never accidentally unlocked the lens adjusting the shutter speed. I dunno, muscle memory? But then I also never had a Nikkormat or got into the Nikon system. My journey into the OM system was; 1st. SLR, Miranda D, 1970, 2nd SLR, Olympus Pen F, 1972, 3rd SLR, Fujica ST701 (nice little camera actually) circa 1973, then a OM-1 in late 74’.
Every one except the Fujica was used. Since that time I’ve had several SLR’s pass through my hands, but never used them that much. Mostly obtained because they could be had, working with a normal lens, for $20 or less. So….just curiosity I guess.
A person just has a list of preferences and tries to check as many boxes when they select a camera to use. For some that was Olympus, for others Pentax, or Nikon or Canon or Topcon or Konica or….wow, it used to be quite a long list. You name it, somebody is a fan.
 
Those were the days... a black OM1 with the 50f1.4 for £15. An OM4 body for £9. Check the prices now!!



I can't think of another 1972 camera with better meter - it way pretty typical of that time. I also used the OM2 the most (and still do), never bonded with the double digit OM although they were not bad models (and could mount the same lenses and accessories) and I still like the OM4 although push come to shove I wouldkeep the OM2.

Olympus, Nikon and Minolta are the only systems I currently use (I also have my EOS5 bought from new). I wouldn't compare one against the other. Maybe that made a lot of sense for the pros back then when they were tailoring their equipment to fit their work but for a hobbist like me these systems have so much to offer.

I wasn't saying the OM1 had a lousy meter in general, but that the copy I had did. After doing some research on the subject back then I found it was a common issue, so I never bothered to get it fixed.

I never made it to pro status but used to have a studio I did some work out of until having to make a career decision. I shot mostly Nikon, and Mamiya medium format. It was only in my later years when I was retired and film cameras got cheap I experienced the cameras I never had the money to investigate in my youth. Minolta, Canon, Olympus, and Yashica/Contax all had their good points, but also their bad points, so I went back to Nikon mostly for 35mm as that system was more to my liking.

PF
 
Back
Top Bottom