Maitani and Olympus brought forth into the camera industry, a new type of 35mm slr... (Apologies to Abraham Lincoln)
(Having spent 40 years in photography, with several years involved in retail, I've observed certain trends.)
The OM-1 came out when "pro cameras" were still cameras used regularly by pros. The Nikon F series (the F2 was introduced in 1971) was still the premier "System Camera" for 35mm users. Canon was playing catch up with the F1. Minolta and Pentax were working on something to compete, which would likely be as big, heavy and complex as the F2 was (and were in the case of the Minolta XK).
The F2 was built like a tank and had the size and weight to meet that analogy. It had, for the time, a staggering array of features and accessories, including interchangeable viewfinders, a dozen or so focusing screens and the biggest selection of lenses. It offered a blazing fast 5fps motor drive (with mirror locked up). Even though pros continued to use less sophistacted cameras such as Pentax Spotmatics, or Nikkormats, the Nikon F and F2 were seen as the mark of "real professionals" by photo enthusiasts and the general public.
They were big, heavy, noisy expensive beasts, but that didn't matter because that was the price to be paid for pro level capabilities. (I bought my F2AS used from a friend who had it just lying around among his dozen or so Nikon bodies, and let me have it cheap as a favor. I loved the camera and how it handled and operated. But I also loved the OM-1 for its own particular charms. Eventually I left Nikon for Olympus.)
Into this milieu came the OM-1. Small. Lightweight. Simple. Inexpensive by comparison. Fulfilling Maitani's dream of a pure "photographer's camera" that offered just what was needed to produce photos in a small, light and elegantly handling system. No features that would be used only occasionaly by only a small number of photographers.
Olympus priced the camera for hobbyists but marketed it for professionals. People scoffed. No way a small, cheaper camera was suitable for pros. Even when things like a 5 FPS motor drive (without needing mirror lock up), 250 exposure back and other pro features were released, people said it wasn't really a pro camera, even though pros were starting to use them.
But they sold. They sold well enough that by the late 70's, every other major maker had come out with some sort of compact 35mm SLR, in some cases intended for the pro market. Pentax, for example, released the tiny MX, which had a great feature set, some aspects of which might be considered pro (such as a 5 FPS motor drive) but lacking in others. Very few pros who weren't already Pentax users bought the camera. Even when the much more capable LX was released, Pentax failed to impress
The Nikon F2 design philosophy was better to have a feature only a few will ever use, then risk not selling cameras for lack of the feature. Canon followed suit, especially with the "New" F1. That philosophy still drives how Nikon and Canon design their flagship models.
They know today that very few people will ever use ISO 200,000+ (or even 25,600 for that matter) but it's there, and part of the price, "just in case" and because the marketing people know such a feature screams "Pro camera!" in the minds of most people. Could CaNikon lop some off the ISO top end and reduce the price of their flagships a bit? Probably, but some would then declare that they are shortchanging people in regards to the "pro capabilities" of the cameras.
Ever consider that one reason why Canon and Nikon keep certain features out of their lower tier cameras is because they want to secure a certain degree of "must buy" status for their flagships? Olympus goes all out, the price reflects this, and is criticized, just as 40 years ago with the OM1, because Olympus has never tried to go toe to toe with the flagships from Canon and Nikon. Sure, some fans of Olympus want them to, or assume they want to, but I have never seen evidence in over 35 years of experience with Olympus products that they wanted to try to dethrone Canon or Nikon. Olympus designs and markets cameras for those who look at the CaNikon flagships and ask "Is there an alternative?"
The moral here is that marketing image, including pricing, has a big impact on how people judge the value of a camera body in regards to "pro status". Part of that relates to how amateurs judge the value of a camera differently, in some respects, from how pros do. While not immunce to G.A.S., the majority of pros factor in Return on Investment when purchasing new gear. Many tend to hold on to a given model longer than enthusiasts do (or think pros do), because if a 5 or even 10 year old camera is still making money, then why not keep using it.
Yes, there is a pro market for the EM1.2, just as there was for the OM-1.
My view is that if I consider the EM1.2 as an alternative to the CaNikon flagships, it's a helluva deal. If I think of it in terms as "just another enthusiast camera" then yes, it seems overpriced. But consider that the "enthusiast" camera in the OMD lineup is the EM5Mk2, which remains at a reasonable price point for it feature set and intended market.
