The reason they are not worth much actual cash is that they were not expensive when introduced, cheaper than their top rivals, and they sold in vast quantities. The original price did not reflect poor quality, they were as good as any rival. But they are still around in large quantities, and do not fetch high prices, more of a usable classic than a collectors camera. It's a bit different if it is mint and has the larger aperture versions of the large range of Zuiko lenses. In good condition these sell for a premium. Stephen
A rough estimate on average they sell on ebay for £30 - £45 if it's working properly and all the seals are good. The 60-300 lens goes for about £16 - £24 and thats only if it has an adapter so it can be used on other cameras. The caps, teleconverter etc have no value on their own.
The cases for OMs are always in bad shape due to decomposition. The cameras have common faults too such as disintegrated light seals and mirror buffers and corrosion of the battery compartment.
Finally, any camera can be taken up Everest. The OM would have been chosen because it was smaller and lighter than the other major brands.
Its not worth a great deal unfortunately but it is a great camera and Olympus has a big following. Digital has almost killed film and many really expensive cameras can be had for little cost.
The Everest cameras were a bit "dodgy", they were not standard, but had been de-lubricated, and fitted with dry lubricant, and had several modifications for low temperature use. The choice was made due to the Shutter speed dial around the lens, it was operable with heavy gloves on. The decision was made by the Everest team, several makers tried to get the contract.
And you can bet they would have supplied modified models in the same way.
To be fair to Olympus this was well known, and advertised at the time, that they were special cameras.
I can't agree with the cases, my own are original and just have wear and tear typical for their age. They are the leather versions, PVC was offered as well. Even the liners are near new condition.
ALL, repeat, ALL makes of cameras of the period suffered with the seals and buffers, if plastic foam was used. Only cord or felt do not rot. My OM1 has cord seals, and a cord buffer, but of course the OM1 was a bit advanced here and had internal dampers as well, which is why they are quieter.
The Shutters have proved to be very good, unless sand, water, or dirt has entered the camera, true of any make. The OM2 has issues with the blind material as it was used to reflect light, and treated with paint, which affected the cloth in some instances.
The OM suffered from business politics within Olympus, the designers hoped the production cost would be covered by huge sales, rather than a high price, believed to be as high as producing a Nikon body at the time, (bar the cost of the titanium shutter Nikon used) so as each year went by in production the accountants tried to trim costs to the bone, resisted by Olympus chief designer Mr Maitani Yoshihisa, who insisted the massive success covered the costs.
But he never got his way on the later models, and all the later cameras were very much lower standards. After he had gone from Olympus they slipped into a very poor period, getting totally lost on the introduction of digital. Recover has been fitful to say the least, excellent Mirrorless M4/3 cameras, and a company mired in financial scandals, now sorted out.
If you have an OM-1 then go out and use it! Of course the lens if Tamron will deliver Tamron results, but some of the original OM lenses were the best ever made, and it shows in the images.