The land before the OM-1
Olympus OM-1 Review – Giant Killer: – As 1972 arrived the four giants of the Japanese film camera business were doubtless feeling rather smug. Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Minolta were probably rubbing their hands with glee and dreaming of the sound of the soft rustle of money falling into their bank accounts. Nikon after all had just released their F2 in 1971 and had upped the ante from their world beating Nikon F. They were probably feeling rather pleased with themselves. Canon likewise had unveiled their F1 with which they hoped to capture the pros away from Nikon. Minolta were on the cusp of releasing their all electronic marvel the X1 and likewise were hoping to drag some pros away from Nikon. Pentax were probably looking a bit glum to be fair with not much to show beyond a rehash of their venerable Spotmatic the Spotmatic IIa, but then Pentax had been steadily losing ground almost from the moment they perfected the 35mm SLR concept. The other three though were doubtless felling rather chuffed as they chomped into their breakfasts and lunches and calculated on a good few years of nice fat profits from their latest offerings.
But, over in a dark corner, out of sight, a newcomer was lurking in the shadows. It would be small but deadly! In a few short years it would kill off some camera developments entirely, redefine what a 35mm SLR should be and change the market for a long while to come. Developed by one of the most inventive of designers and launched from a company hitherto almost unknown in the world of professional photography it would change everything – Cry havoc and let slip the Olympus OM-1!
The OM-1 arrives
Technically it was the M1 that arrived. Olympus originally called it the M1 and it launched at the Photokina Show in Cologne in 1972. Leica were most unhappy as their cameras were always called ‘M Something’ and after a bit of corporate wheeler dealing Olympus agreed to change the name to OM-1. Leica were somewhat mollified when Olympus agreed that the M1 designated units would not be sold outside of Japan. M1 units accounted for around 52,00 units and while collectible are not in fact the best of the Olympus OM-1 series as Olympus made quite a few changes after early production.
Leica were no more than a nuisance as Olympus would go on to sell around 1.3 million OM-1s where Leica would be hard pressed to sell 50,000 of anything in the same time frame.
So what made the camera so upsetting and unsettling to the industry? In a word size – but it also had some other attributes too.
The biggest shock to the market was how small the OM-1 was, in an age of cameras that had steadily bloated in size the OM-1 looked positively toy like. Its diminutive size gave many pause for thought fearing such a small camera may well be unreliable but the OM-1 had been well designed, why would you expect less from Yoshihisa Maitani a true design genius. The OM-1 handled superbly and it featured an exceptionally wide field of view through its viewfinder which was also exceptionally bright. The camera was released with a massive selection of lenses and accessories which grew over time to create one of the most complete SLR camera systems.
The small size was the result of Maitani-san reconsidering the internal layout of the camera to create a 35mm SLR that was closer in size to a Rangefinder type. This radically different layout though had some downsides as you’ll see later.
Strangely for all the radical reduction in size the OM-1 is quite basic as a camera. There are few techno twirls, the camera is a fully manual system using batteries only for its light meter. Beyond its small size it is a relatively simple mechanical beast albeit one with very nice handling. Simple and straightforward to work with and in many ways maybe the best mechanical camera of its day for the working photographer and much used by David Bailey among others.
Refining the OM-1
On release the OM-1 could not support a motor drive. Olympus finally added a motor drive capability with the OM-1 MD which also included other manufacturing tweaks to get the camera ‘right’ internally and get over problems which had appeared in the earlier version. This is why I said that the M1 model while collectable is probably not the best example to shoot with.
In 1979 Olympus further refined the camera with the release of the OM-1n which featured further internal improvements plus a flash ready indicator and automatic X sync flash when used with its Flash Shoe 4 fitting. One of the interesting design choices with the OM-1 camera was the fact that it had a removable flash shoe. Modern shooters find these break with monotonous regularity. They were fragile even back in the 1970s and the plastic hasn’t gotten any stronger since.
Camera snobs will always claim the earlier version was the best. I have shot both the OM-1 MD and the OM-1n and found absolutely no difference in them at all.
Using the OM-1 back then…
I graduated to the OM-1 MD via a trusty Pentax Spotmatic. I managed to bag one after a shot I got paid handsomely for allowed me to buy a more upmarket camera. The OM-1 was greatly desired in its day especially by younger photographers like me who kind of liked the kick to the pants that Olympus had delivered to more established makers and young people back then, just as now, could be somewhat swayed by the new and fashionable. In any event Nikon pricing for its F and F2 models pushed those cameras firmly out of the reach of any but professionals and people happy to live on cat food as the price of owning one. As soon as the cheque from my Pulitzer prize winning photo arrived (It wasn’t really a Pulitzer winner but the local paper was happy to pay over the odds for it) I was off to my local camera shop as fast as my kitten heels could carry me and the money swiftly transferred from my sweaty palms into the camera shops bank account. I walked out with a black OM-1, 55mm f1.2 lens and a very smug look on my face.
The camera was all I had hoped for – in fact the OM-1 was a revelation especially the view through the viewfinder which, after the Spotmatic, seemed incredibly bright and so expansive it was almost frightening. Even today the OM-1 viewfinder is not bettered for its widescreen like view although cameras like the Minolta XD can beat it on brightness.
Over time I acquired more lenses and a second body and did a lot of shooting with the OM-1. It was always solid and reliable and most other people back then who owned one found the same and its reliability was perfect despite many peoples fears over its small size.
I owned the OM-1 for a long time and it took thousands of pictures without fault. I grew to love its simple metering and even the oddity of its shutter speed control being wrapped around the lens worked well for me. Some people are still moaning about this unusual feature 50 years after the camera ceased production.
One of the things I most loved with the OM-1 was its simplistic approach to stuff. As I pulled the camera to my eye I got used to flipping the meter on via its switch on the top cover, pulling the camera to my eye while getting my left hand gripping the shutter speed control so the camera would fall into my hands ready for shooting in seconds. The other oddity with the OM-1 was its depth of field stop down was managed via the lens rather than the camera body. The positioning of the stop down button on the lenses though was good and made for easy handling as it falls under your middle finger when gripping a lens. I was though always less keen on the lens f stop ring being towards the front of the lens which could create the odd fumble and again its something some people found annoying back then and still do today.
There’s no shutter safety on the OM-1. The design was based for pros and a pro would rather lose a frame than miss a shot! This can irk the amateur shooter in the modern day especially if they have a scrooge like approach to film.
Using the OM-1 now…
Time has not been kind to the OM-1. When I restarted film photography my first choice was another OM-1 to relive my salad days. A friend of mine who had two OM-1s out of use at her observatory where they had been used for many years for astro-imaging passed me two black OM-1n bodies in exchange for some of my home made jam (jam making is my other big hobby).
Sadly time has been even less kind to the OM-1 than it has been to me. While the camera still has a place in my heart some of the design and production choices have come home to roost. The biggest issue the OM-1 can have these days is decaying prisms caused by the foam Olympus installed on the prism top. This is probably the single biggest killer of OM-1 bodies but it’s not the sole issue though it’s usually the easiest to fix at least as far as removing the foam is concerned, a ruined prism can only be solved with a spare prism.
Many OM-1s suffer advance issues due to a spring in the base of the camera weakening and this is a more serious issue. There are no spares short of a donor camera and a weakened spring will cause the camera to keep jamming as you wind on. The final issue that afflicts the OM-1 is the decision by the design team to place the cameras high speed escapement in the base of the camera below the mirror box. This was the big change that allowed the size reduction but it has consequences. The high speed cams need to be clean and placing them in the lowest part of the camera where they are subject to dust and dirt ingress is the cause of many OM-1s having poor shutter performance today..
One of the weakest parts of the design even back in its day, although mine never suffered from it, is the hinge side light seal. The camera is known as a leaky camera from this seal today and old school techs tell me it were ever so with the OM-1. To get the seal right requires a relatively complex seal – this is covered in the light seal guide I wrote some time ago along with the very tricky mirror bumpers.
Both of my OM-1ns were serviced as both were suffering the advance jamming issue mentioned on arrival. After servicing they shot well and I have used them extensively over the past few years. I still think the OM-1 viewfinder is marvellous and personally always think the metering system of having a simple needle indicator is the best and simplest and doesn’t impinge on the view of the subject as much as many metering systems. It’s simple and clear and allows you to gauge exposure with the least fuss.
I still love the OM-1 as an overall experience but have decided, reluctantly, to part with my two in favour of other cameras. In part this was down to lens choices. Olympus glass is good but relatively expensive for the top end glass. I chose to use my Minolta XDs which provide a similar size but are significantly more advanced than the OM-1 and Minolta glass, in my opinion, aces Olympus glass and it’s a lot less expensive even for exotic lenses.
What Olympus did next…
The OM-1 spawned a whole generation of OM cameras. Few would achieve the success of the original OM-1 design though.
In 1975 Olympus released the OM-2 in response to the rise of automatic exposure cameras pioneered by other manufacturers notably Minolta. The OM-2 operates just like an OM-1 with the addition of aperture priority automatic mode and a more sophisticated metering system which measured light off the film itself.
In 1983 Olympus reengineered the camera again and released the OM-4 with multi spot metering and an electronically controlled shutter. This was the high point of the OM camera evolution and the most sophisticated OM of them all but by 1984 Olympus were losing traction. Subsequent OM bodies were pitched towards an increasingly smaller market like the later OM-4Ti released in 1997 which was aimed at the upmarket shooter with a healthy bank balance. Essentially an OM-4 with titanium top and bottom plates. I owned one when new based on a desire to own another OM (I was at that time still besotted by the OM-1). It was a horror for reliability, constant transport failures and metering issues. In the end it went back for a refund and any brand loyalty I felt for Olympus was quashed forever.
The OM-3 and OM-2 Spot Program appeared in 1984. The OM-2 SP was basically a reengineered OM-4 to get the price of the OM-4 down while the OM-3 was basically an OM-1 with spot metering capability but retaining an all mechanical shutter so the camera could operate without batteries if required. These cameras had a very short production life of a few years. The OM-3 for instance was in production for a scant 3 years. Buyers preferred the less expensive OM-1 which was still in production.
The final true OM camera was the OM-3Ti released in 1995 – basically an OM-3 with titanium top and bottom plates, effectively a re-release of the OM-3. The OM-3Ti came with a very hefty price tag (circa £2,000 in 1999) aimed at the retro photographer, who being tired by the gimmickry then extant in the market just wanted a simple, solid, mechanical camera.
The OM-3Ti would duke it out with other exotic cameras taking the same approach like Contax and Leica – expensive cameras for the well heeled (you can read about these cameras from the 1990s here).
This fall from volume was a consequence of Olympus being forced into smaller and smaller market spaces for old school photographers due to the lack of any developments in Autofocus. The later OMs sold in very small quantities, the OM-3Ti was the last of the OM family on the shelf and production stopped in 2002 after a few thousand units.
This is the end…
The OM-1 was a fine camera in its day, it radically altered the camera market and forced rival manufacturers into different directions and place a premium on size and handling. It was a giant killer both in the effect it had on other companies but more so in it killing off a great many camera designs. Minoltas XE series for instance was a casualty. In time other companies fought back hard. Canon took a different approach entirely and went for low cost with their AE-1, Nikon eventually responded with the FM, Minolta punched back hard with the XD (almost the same size as an OM-1 but brimming with features) and Pentax would play Olympus at their own game of a small , wholly mechanical SLR in their marvellous MX.
Olympus had redefined the market but seemed unable to fully capitalise on it in much the same way as Pentax had created the 35mm SLR market and were then outflanked and outdistanced by others.
Looking back its quite surprising that the OM-1 had such an effect. It is at heart a relatively simple all mechanical camera with no gimmicks and that had a great appeal to many professionals in its day and continues to appeal to many modern film shooters. However it’s not a technical marvel and was, as things happened, rapidly outplayed by the other manufacturers.
What killed the OM system was the rise of Autofocus. Once AF appeared the writing was on the wall for manual focus systems. Olympus struggled on with no AF SLRs and found some small appeal with their fully mechanical cameras but the camera marketplace is no country for old men and old cameras.
Like the cameras it had helped kill the OM would find its own nemesis – strangely at the hands of Minolta whose XE series had been killed by the OM-1 – the OM series would be killed by Minoltas 7000 AF system and that really is a dictionary definition of Nemesis (a rightful infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent).
For all of that history it’s still a nice camera to shoot with and I still have happy memories using one. I just don’t have shelf space for another camera system.
Mel is one of the driving forces behind High 5 Cameras and writes all our articles.
Starting serious photography back in 1972. Over the years she got to shoot film with most of the major brands in 35mm and large format as both a studio photographer and content provider for websites in the early life of the web. These days she is rediscovering photography and has become the GOTO person for knowledge on camera repair advice.