Speaking of 35 mm camera makers giving up the ghost, Olympus is abandoning its OM line. The OM-4ti is a high-end manual camera comparable to Leica's R series. The old OM-1 and OM-2 are still popular in the used market.

Here's what Olympus had to say:

"Olympus will discontinue the 35mm OM SLR system. The company continues to manufacture selected lenses and accessories for the OM System that will remain on sale with limited availability until the end of March 2003.

"Olympus launched the original OM-1 in 1972 and has developed and sold numerous OM System lenses and accessories. After 30 years, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find stable supplies of parts for the camera system. This has made it impossible to continue to keep the system on the market. Olympus is committed to providing excellent levels of after sales service for its products, including:

"Body, Lens, Flash: Olympus will maintain parts for approximately 10 years after the end of production.

"Other Accessories: Olympus will maintain parts for other accessories, but time periods differ from part to part."

More fuel for the discussion about the changing manual-film-35mm camera landscape . . .

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), January 20, 2002

Answers

What's David Bailey going to do now? Retire? Or move over to the Leica Side....

-- Philip Woodcock (phil@pushbar.demon.co.uk), January 20, 2002.

I don't buy Olympus' "difficulty finding parts" excuse. If the OM series was selling, they'd make the parts. Nikon just released the FM3A which resurrects some parts from the FE2 of the early 80's. And it's selling. IMO there is one reason why Olympus can't sell the OM's and Leica's R system is next to fall: the biggest investment is our lenses, and when a manufacturer demonstrates a lack of commitment to keeping those lenses usable and valuable, photographers panic and abandon ship. This happened when Canon started the EOS line and switched lensmounts. It took them a long time to win back their customers, and only because Canon is such a huge and diverse company did they have the financial staying power to do so. Today the issue isn't any longer AF vs manual focus. It's film vs digital. Someone can feel comfortable buying a "retro" body like the FM3a because there is system compatibility of lenses with the D1-series. Even if we *say* film will never go away, how many of us want to risk tens of thousands of dollars on that prediction? If Leica were to confirm that a digital R body is in the works, I believe they would see a strengthening of their sales. Likewise if Olympus were to take the S20 and put an OM lensmount on it, they could keep the line going.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), January 20, 2002.

Olympus hasn't been a serious contender in the 35mm SLR market place for a long time. Not surprising that like other bit players (Ricoh for example) they decided to call it quits and focus on digital.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), January 20, 2002.

I know 3 photojournalist that use olympus gear(mainly OM3/4ti).I think they might be buying up remaining stock because they swear by them.If you think about it they are no bigger than an M6 and not much noisier.The only trouble was that their range of lenses was never up to much.I don't think they ever made any really fast 28,35 and 50mm optics(I think some will prove me wrong!)

-- Phill Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), January 20, 2002.

What do you mean by "really fast" optics, Phill? At time I sold my Olympus stuff , I had a Zuiko 28/f2 and a 35/f2. They also made a 21/f2, a 24/f2, and a 50/f1.2, although I never owned those lenses.

I used the Olympus system for 13 years and covered assignments in 27 countries on five continents. I loved the equipment, and hung on as long as I could in hope they would bring out an auto-focus system, but was ultimately forced by aging eyes to switch to Canon EOS.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), January 20, 2002.

Told you! I didn't know they did wides that fast.I was going to add that I would like to have seen 28mm f2,35mm f1.4 and 50mm 1.4/1.2. So I was wrong again,oh well.

I know they made some superb fast tele's,I think they did a 250mm f2.8?I still have an OM1 which I have added to my collection of old cameras,but my 8 year old son has his eyes on it!

-- Phill Kneen (philkneen@manx.net), January 20, 2002.

For what it's worth, the OM-1 (1972) was designed as a poor man's Leica: much smaller than the SLRs of the day, a very quiet mechanical shutter, mirror-slap significantly reduced (you can hand-hold shots at 1/15), and a solid, metal body. The TTL meter is accurate and reliable. The viewfinder offers 97% coverage, which is still high by today's standards.

It's a great little camera, offering stripped-down functionality, and a large system of lenses and accessories. A piece of camera history now has its headstone filled in.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), January 20, 2002.

Actually, I believe they made a 250mm *f2* lens.

Eugene Richards used the 21/f2 for much of his "Cocaine Blue" book because it was the fastest/widest lens he could get.

I suspect that those who love the virtues of the OM system will go right on using them and that they will increase in market value. As a matter of fact, after ten years away from Olympus, I'm putting together a small outfit to complement my Leica when I need to travel light.

I am also, after a spell of back trouble which may yet require surgery, reorienting my marketing to bring in more jobs which can be accomplished with a minimal outfit. Years of carrying a van-load of medium format equipment and heavy powerpacks and bags of light stands have taken their toll.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), January 20, 2002.

When I did photography for $$$ the Olympus was my SLR for long lenses and macros. The camera handled a lot like my M3s--same focus direction and general size, and had some really fine lenses. Like Dave, though, I don't seem to be able to focus it anymore (the Olympus' famous large viewfinder image also translates as lousy eye- relief for use with glasses, and both that and the viewing distance on my Visoflex are friendlier to my eyes, so I sold most of it last year. Great stuff, though, for the time.

-- Michael Darnton (mdarnton@hotmail.com), January 20, 2002.

If I remember correctly, Eugene Richards was using a Canon F-1 (old style) system for this book. Pop photo had an artice featuring selected work from this book, as well as an interview.

-- Mike DeVoue (karma77@att.net), January 20, 2002.

I've been using Olympus OM cameras since 1981. I currently own an OM- 2n and OM-2S (Sot/Pogram). My lenses include 21/3.5, 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 50/3.5 mqcro, 100/2.8 and 35-70/4 zoom. I also have a Vivitar 70-210 zoom, T32 flash with TTL extension cord and a Winder 2. I've had good results with this gear and I still use it occasionally, although I prefer using my Leica M stuff these days. Light metering is especially good and the cameras are tough and solid.

OM cameras and lenses are SMALL! They even make the Leica M series seem big and heavy. For anyone interested, the following web site has excellent pictures and descriptions of the entire OM range of cameras, lenses and accessories: http://www.taiga.ca/~esif/om-sif.htm

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), January 21, 2002.

I agree Olympus have moved away from traditional cameras for some time, and instead have concentrated on digital, a field in which they are a leader. Leica just needs to stick to what it does well, and concentrate on craftsmanship. I have always had a soft spot for Olys, from the excellent 35RC (my first serious camera) through to the various OMs. The lenses are good and very contrasty, but IMHO, Leitz lenses have better resolution.

-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), January 21, 2002.

Mike, if you'll go back and re-read that Pop Photo article, I think you'll find he used an Oly with the 21/f2 extensively.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), January 21, 2002.

I also have an OM-1n but without any useable lens to use. I think it is better camera than Nikon fe2. Both have similar true match needle meter which is more prefered to the matching diode dot in the Leica M6 or Nikon fm2 camera. OM-1n also have true Mirror lockup but fe2 lacks. What it more amazing is that the view finder features .91 in magnification (well compared to that on an M3) and covers 97% of film area with a 50 mm lens. Whole thing is smaller and lighter than fe2/fm2/M6 settings. It could be very cool looking to have the 40/2 pancake lens mounted.

-- kenny chiu (amchiu@worldnet.att.net), January 21, 2002.

Just to throw in my 0.02. The OM is a great system indeed, it was revolutionary when it appeared and still is amazing for quality, compactness and completeness. I started photography with a OM-1 back in 1972, when it first appeared. I immediately fell in love with the elegant and compact design. (BTW, it should have been called M-1, but then Olympus had to withdraw that name - guess why...?!)

I tried and owned many lenses and bodies thru the years, my favourites remaining the bare bones OM-2 (with optional aperture priority AE), lenses ranging from 21 to 200. Most used: 35/2, 85/2. Some of the Zuiko glass is reputed superb, the 24/2 has long remained the fastest of its length. The TTL capabilities have set standards in the 80's, the T32 is a really well designed piece of flash. Very handy for macro work, too. And I DO like the mirror lock for rocksteady tripod shots. If I weren't using my M6 so exclusively these days I would try to get hold of just another spare body before they run out. But then again, they last forever...

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), January 22, 2002.

The OM-1n model that came out in 1979 (which updated the flash and motordrive capabilities of the OM-1) is very widely available used-- and cheap, too. Usually around $200 for mint. Lenses are not expensive either, with a 50/1.8 setting you back between $35 and $50. I just paid $200 for a 28/2.8; the 28/2.0 was about twice that.

I suspect that OM fans (like me and the posters above) comprise only a small group precisely BECAUSE the equipment is so cheap (if it were more expensive, would more people use it? The more you pay, the more it's worth?). Anyone who has used OM is generally very attached to it. Remember that it was pro equipment in the 70s. Imagine now being able to buy a complete pro outfit (two bodies, multiple primes and zooms) for about $1,000.

The OM-1, 1n, and 2 are used extensively in astro- and micro- photography, because of the mirror lock-up and the small size: a strange niche to have been filled by what was marketed as a journalists' camera!

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), January 22, 2002.