Did Olympus make a 'professional' 35mm camera?

Well, by chance both of my cameras arrived today-the OM-1 and OM-4. The OM-1 came with a 50mm f/1.8 "Made in Japan", which some quick internet research tells me is considered better than the plain "Japan" one, along with a 28mm f/3.5 and a Kiron 80-200mm f/4.5. I'm usually not wild about 3rd party zooms from this era, but I know the Kirons are generally well regarded. The OM-1 came with a 50mm f/1.8(Japan) along with a Spiratone 28mm that I'll probably never use and a Spiratone 80-200mm f/4.5.

In any case, both came right to life with fresh batteries(alkaline 76s in the OM-4, a single zinc-air in the OM-1) and seem accurate enough. I ran a roll of TMAX-100 through the OM-4, and I'll be anxious to see what it looks like. The OM-1 had a roll of Gold 200 pre-loaded in it(which I found out the hard way) so I'll finish that off and see what happens.

I have to say I like the handling of both bodies. I was glad that my OM-1 prism was clear, and the viewfinder is indeed big and beautiful. Depending on how much I like the system, I'll need to round it out with a 20mm and/or 24mm, plus at least some moderate Zuiko teles.

 

I have to say I like the handling of both bodies. I was glad that my OM-1 prism was clear, and the viewfinder is indeed big and beautiful. Depending on how much I like the system, I'll need to round it out with a 20mm and/or 24mm, plus at least some moderate Zuiko teles.

If you decide to keep the OM-1 you'll want to remove the foam on top of the prism.

A lens that has turned out to be one of my favorites is the Zuiko 135mm f3.5. It came with two other lenses that I was more interested in. The image quality is good but probably not as good as what you'd get from a more premium lens. What I like about it though is its relatively compact size and the focal length seems to be about right for the kinds of pictures I like to take. The built in retractable hood is a nice touch. They can be had for very little money.

I'll probably end up with an OM-1 also before all is said and done.

My brother worked as a photojournalist from the early '80s to the mid-'90s. He used all Nikon kit (not strictly pro, though, he preferred the FM2n with an MD-12 motor drive). I only ever remember him praising one other camera, and that was the Olympus OM (either the OM1 or 2, I can't remember). I suppose it was inevitable that I would eventually want to see what appealed to him about this camera system and I bought an OM1n. I think it's a great camera and I love the fact that it is part of a system. I like the looks, the compactness and the results, which I can't fault.

If this isn't a pro camera, I'm a banana.

 

...If this isn't a pro camera, I'm a banana.

Hmm... how would you

like to come over for

supper...?

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

I remember that OM cameras were used by some notable outdoor/adventure photographers, including naturalist David Attenborough and mountaineers Chris Bonington and Allen Steck. On the back cover of his book Life on Earth, Attenborough had a black OM-1 in his hand.

Here are a few more: Well known or famous Photographers who use(d) an OM | The Olympus OM Crew , aka The Cult of Zuiko | Flickr

I remember that OM cameras were used by some notable outdoor/adventure photographers, including naturalist David Attenborough and mountaineers Chris Bonington and Allen Steck. On the back cover of his book Life on Earth, Attenborough had a black OM-1 in his hand.

 

Here are a few more: Well known or famous Photographers who use(d) an OM | The Olympus OM Crew , aka The Cult of Zuiko | Flickr

OK, it's a pretty short list, then. I like that; I tend to favour the underdog.

I remember that OM cameras were used by some notable outdoor/adventure photographers...

My second SLR was the OM-4. It was the advertising showing adventure photography that grabbed me.

My second SLR was the OM-4. It was the advertising showing adventure photography that grabbed me.

I could have written exactly the same thing. Second SLR, and the advertising.

I could have written exactly the same thing. Second SLR, and the advertising.

Maybe I'm just getting lost in the thread, but it looks like you did write exactly the same thing. :)

Maybe I'm just getting lost in the thread, but it looks like you did write exactly the same thing. :)

Where's the :smackhead: smiley? It looks like I'm the one getting lost!

Just to be clear, I wasn't saying the ability to pop off the Nikon prism for a quick-n-dirty waist level or above crowd view wasn't a worthwhile feature- it is. The problem is many F and F2 bodies don't have secure screen latches, so if you turn the prism-less body upside down and hold it above your head, you've got a 50/50 chance the screen falls out and hits the ground. Replacement screens used to be widely available for just a couple bucks on the second hand market, now they aren't, so I would not be so comfortable playing that game anymore. Of my Nikons pictured below, only the black F Photomic FTn has latches that hold the screen securely when held upside down: all the others will let it fall out via gravity within seconds, as is the case with most other F and F2 bodies I've owned previously.

 

I put my Olympus OM-1 in the pic just to show how much smaller and sleeker it is than the redoubtable Nikon pro bodies. Nothing beats it for SLR event shooting: the least obnoxious shutter sound of any focal plane camera ever made short of a Leica, and its nicer than a few of those I've heard (CL, I'm looking at you). OM2 and OM2S have the same damper system, but Olympus tossed it with the OM3, OM4 and OM4Ti. I like the sophisticated spot meter in those later OM bodies, but their gnarly shutter sound is nothing like the original OM1 / OM2. And the titanium body versions attract wear marks like a lint brush attracts cat hair: no thanks. After trying them all, I went back to the OM-1 that started me in SLR photography back in 1976: it makes a nice supplement to my big Nikons.

 

Other than the usual modern battery issue afflicting all mercury powered cameras, the big gotcha with vintage OM is rotted foam desilvering the prism internals. This is a pain and expensive to get repaired, the same dealbreaker that also kills Nikon F plain meterless prisms and the Leicaflex SL2.

 

[ATTACH=full]1295112[/ATTACH]

I gor the prism in my SL-2 resilvered last summer. Pain finding anyone to do a proper job these days, but it worked out nicely. The SL has no issues so far, nor does my OM-1. Plenty of Canons with similar issues according to my tech (who sees them all)....

Just a follow-up to my earlier comment about OM cameras being favored with some notable mountaineers. I was just reading First Across the Roof of the World by Peter Hillary and Graeme Dingle, about their first-ever (5,000 km) transverse of the Himalayas back in 1981. Olympus supplied expedition members with cameras and lenses including the OM-1, OM-2, XA, and XA2. Many photos in the book were taken with the 28mm, 50mm macro, and 75-150mm Zuiko lenses.

Allen Steck is also shown with an OM-1 in the book Storm and Sorrow in the High Pamirs, about the ill-fated 1974 joint Soviet/US expedition.

It would make sense given the relatively compact size of those cameras for them to be used in those kinds of situations.

I was at a camera store the other night, - one that has an active used camera business. They had several OMs and a bunch of Zuiko lenses. Sometimes it takes seeing them next to other cameras and lenses to appreciate how small they really are.

There’s no doubt, in my mind, that the single digit OM cameras were ‘Pro’ they sat at the heart of a vast system which included some pretty exotic and even unique glass e.g the 250/2, 350/2.8, 21/2, 24mm Shift (a first which is much better than the Canon TS-E Mk1) and a super-strong macro system both lenses, flashes and other accessories.

It's worth remembering Oly are big players in the medical instrument market and that’s professional use too, just not in the photojournalist sense. To support those use cases and the macro system they also had motor drives, interval timers microscope adapters, specialist medical camera bodies, endoscopy equipment, bulk film backs and a world of other stuff. There’s no way all of that could be sustained unless there was a real market for it.

Saying "professional camera" is like saying "professional car". It depends on what you're using it for! You wouldn't complain if you couldn't carry a load of bricks in your Ferrari, would you?

(Anecdote: Years ago, I was standing at a camera dealer's counter as the Pentax rep was touting their latest SLR. Time after time, with every amazing and remarkable new feature revealed by the rep, a customer standing nearby raised some criticism. After six or seven such objections, the rep praised the red and green markers in the finder, showing over/under exposure warning. The customer asked, "But what if you're color blind?" After a moment's hesitation, the rep replied, through clenched teeth, "Then. Don't. Buy. The. Camera!")

Most Nikon or Canon users never use or truly need any of the various finders made for them, nor, for that matter do most OM users ever change the focusing screen. It's possible if you need to, but hardly a "deal breaker" for most photographers, professional or happy-snapper. Mirror lock up to reduce mirror vibration? Some have it, some don't. Auto exposure? Self-timer? X-sync and FP-sync? Databacks? AutoWinders and Motordrives, some with rewind capability? Bulk film back? Off-The-Film exposure control, both ambient as well as strobe? You makes your choices, you pays your price!

I used to know an old photographer from UPI who swore the only "professional" camera was a Speed Graphic -- these new-fangled "thirty five milly-meeter" toys weren't for "real" photographers!

For me, a camera is a tool. I'm not trying to impress anyone with the name on the top. I've used 6x7's, 645's, worked with a guy who shot 4x5 cut film. But nothing has ever beat my OM-2n, OM-1n, OM-4t, and all the lenses and accessories I've got for them. Plus I can carry lots more stuff without "camera bag stoop" from a too heavy kit!

And as far as alternative finders go, Olympus did have this gizmo:

Jerry Soloway who worked for UPI in the 70s / 80s used Olympus OM system exclusively. yes, it is / was a professional system.

So the question is this: Did Olympus make a 'professional' 35mm SLR, that is analogous to the Nikon F and Canon F-1?

I was selling cameras when these came out. Beautifully made, small and neat - seemed very good, performed well. In retrospect, my impression is they were ahead of their time - a bit like Studebaker in the late '50's. Don't recall selling many. and wouldn't have considered trading in my Nikons. Did have a Studebaker, wish I still had it!

My cousin showed me his OM1, and I thought it was like a toy, compared to my Nikon.

4-1/2 decades later, I see the wisdom of the smaller lighter cameras.

I'm past the point of being able to carry the gear kit that I used to. So it was 'trim the kit,' go with lighter gear, or stop shooting.

I decided to go with the lighter gear (Olympus m4/3), for most of my shooting.

I still use the Nikon D7200 for field sports, because the Nikon 70-200/4 and my hand work together well. My hand just works the zoom ring without me thinking about it. And the zoom ring is light and EASY to turn, just like how zoom rings should be.