Traveling with the XA

I'm another fan of the XA as a travel cam, either solo ("one camera, one lens") or as a companion to another RF. I've got a set of photos over on my flickr taken w/ my XA, most of which involved travel of some sort. http://www.flickr.com/photos/47441613@N00/sets/72157606764985721/

Although I've got other RF cameras now, I still pack my XA when I want to travel light but have a camera w/ me. I was in Washington, D.C. last week on business travel, and the camera I had along was the XA.

It would be nice to have a meter w/ settings higher than 800. Still, there is so little shutter vibration that you can hand-hold the XA at quite slow speeds and get decent results. I like using Neopan 1600 @ 800 w/ mine.
 
I bought mine new in 1983 just before a trip to Europe with our two children who were 4 and 6 at the time. I told the woman at the camera shop that I wanted a camera which I could put in my pocket but which would give me more control than a simple point-and-shoot and she said, "This is what you want."

I loaded it with Kodachrome and set off on the trip without even running a test roll through it. What I got back was perfectly exposed, (mostly) perfectly focused pictures including an interior shot of the chapel in the Tower of London taken with available light. My son took it backpacking on Alaska and it even survived being "borrowed" by one of my daughter's 5th grade classmates. Most recently I took it on a trip to Barcelona where I did not want to worry about having my Leica IIIf stolen.
 
Let me bug this nice thread one more time. As I mentioned above - I had the XA for about a year and I have used it during my trip to New Zealand exclusively with Ektar 100. However upon getting the scans back I was not too happy about the lens performance. Truth to be told I do not know what to expect from the XA. Anyhow - I have sold the camera and since trying to find a replacement (Still hesitate to pay the bucks for the Contax T3)

So would you be so king to check a few 100% crops (Collscan 5000 at 2700 spi) HERE and let me know what you think about the detail? The scans were not sharpened.

I actually have printed a few photos to 8x10" - and they are on the edge - not really crisp sharp (I am probably spoiled by larger formats) - just acceptable.

Is this the "good" the "bad" or the "average" XA? Should I give it one more try or should I look elsewhere?
 
@Matus -- Those are nice shots. To my eye, the crop of the shot at f.11 has the sharpest detail. The other sample shotswere either taken wide open (f2.8) or stopped down to f.16 and f.22, and the sharpness at either end falls off. I'm not surprised by these results. The lens tests I've seen for the XA indicate that the lens' optimal performance is between f.4 and f.11, and my own experience tends to bear that out. For ordinary daylight photography, I try to shoot at f5.6 or f.8 if possible, and avoiding stopping down below f.11. I can get sharp results at those apertures, particularly w/ a nice fine-grain color film. I haven't tried to make enlargements over 8x10, though. I often shoot w/ older ("vintage") lenses on my other RFs, and compared to those lenses the XA holds its own (yes, it does vignette wide open, but I don't mind that). Compared to a modern lens, not so much, but then I don't expect it to.

If you liked the camera for its portability and ease of use, I'd give it another try, and shoot it in the f.4 to f.8 range.
 
I did sell my XA because I couldn't see the rangefinder patch clearly and it was eating batteries. Since then I've tried many small cameras but I still miss my XA. My Rollei 35 is a lovely camera but when travelling I just need a good meter and a self timer.
 
Last edited:
I'll be the loner voting against it as the best but, would agree it is one of teh better ones. When I had mine, I also had a Minox ML and preferred it by a wide margin. BUT, sadly the ML had a troublesome shutter until the latter part of the production of the model. The MDC and late production MLs have the problem licked. Also, preferred the original Rollei 35 and though did not like the later versions still preferred them over the XA.

More than the XA I also prefer my Contina II folder but it is not a light weight. But, for me the best travel camera for general use is the Leica CL. Smaller then the M series it does need a big pocket. On a cost basis, the CL though is not a fair comparison. 2nd on my best list though entirely different is the Rolleiflex. These are quite light compared to many other cameras, especially the 3.5 T. As there is no moving mirror, shutter speeds of 1/30th can be done without a tripod and the lenses regardless of type, period or fomulation are top rate. As the XA and Rollei are both fixed lens there is no issue with the lens. A complete kit for both the XA and 'Flex are minimal.

So, I am not accused of an anti-Olympus bias, I had a very complete collection of Oly 1/2 frame cameras including the F series for years and found universally their glass bettered my lenses on my Pentax SLR and as good as the Zeiss glass on my cameras. I loved the models they put out and when I had the collection and before getting the ML and Rollei 35, I'd always carry a Olympus 1/2 frame. Lastly, when I fonally broke down and bought a DSLR (my 1st and only digital), after looking at the Nikon, Canon and Sony found the Oly glass to be as good as what I was used to from decades earlier and had no reservation buying an E series.

The XA is a very good camera but, certainly not the best. I never tried the later XA2 etc. so I can not comment on them.
 
Late to the party here and it seems that somehow the XA is being compared to sharpness examples from other cameras and in general, to other cameras as "the best".

I have one coming and am anxious to try it out as hot weather here in the tropical South makes carrying the M3 less fun with all the sweating, strap, etc. I am interested in what I can do with it, not what the camera does.

In other words, vignetting, softness, whatever, may or may not be a characteristic of the camera but I am looking forward to using this as another tool and see what results I can make from it. Not snapshots or sharp as a tack photos...I have a D40 for that, but it is not film and far too cumbersome.

Hoping that the images in Black and White will have some character!🙂
 
The XA is a near-perfect travel camera:
  • It's small, so you can easily pack it along with your "serious" camera.
  • It's inconspicuous, so it won't attract attention when you don't want it.
  • It's inexpensive, and looks cheap, so you don't have to worry about losing it or making yourself a target.
  • Its batteries are tiny and last forever, so you don't need to worry about packing extras or charging.
  • It's a rangefinder, so you don't need to spend the trip wondering if your autofocus is screwing up shots.
  • It's quite sharp by ƒ/8, and can be set to hyperfocal distance for grab shots.
  • 35mm and ƒ/2.8 is nice for selective focus portraits.
  • It's metal, so it's pretty damn tough. You can toss it in a bag without worry.
  • It does long exposures, and generally handles challenging lighting situations quite well, so you don't have to put it away at night.





 
I use the XA and the Minox GT as travel cam. The GT gets the edge in sharpness and overall perfect exposure system. Both cameras are tiny and light, and both sport 35mm/2.8 lenses. The XA has a RF while the GT has distance guessing.
 
I like mine...

I like mine...

See the shots:
61220007Medium.jpg


61220001Medium.jpg


61220016Medium.jpg


Pics hosted at Photobucket

However, I am finding that I like even more, the two XA2's that I paid $20 for (both). The zone/scale focus makes them less fiddly on focus, the images are sharp, and I like the bit of vignetting that occurs with the XA2. I can hip shoot the XA2's much easier.
 
I'm with btgc ; I loved the XA but my old clumsy fingers sometimes disturbed the range setting on opening the clamshell, so I changed to the XA2; robust for quick use,and with the short focal length the focus is never too far out 😀 .
 
Does anyone know if the XA and XA2 have the same size body? I notice people talking about the XA being smaller in the hand. I have an XA that was given to me as not working. It does, sorta. It is missing the clamshell door. They don't work without that unless you know what to do. I will try to put a posing with photos sometime in the near future. In the meantime, I have ordered an XA2 parts camera, but am now worried it may not provide me the clamshell I need.
 
@ oftheherd
When I had them side-by-side, the XA & XA2 bodies looked to be the same size; admittedly I didn't make precise measurements. (The same applied to the XA1.) My (original) XA2 booklet says 102x65x40 mm, a posting I found on the web says 102x64.5x40 for the XA (I no longer have it), but the difference is probably just 'editorial'. I expect that your 'parts' XA2 will be OK for you 🙄 .
 
Other good things that I like about the XA series are the conveniently mountable flash accessory, and that the electronics are relatively simple and *reliable* (unlike e.g. my Minox 35GT - never again!). Whereas the ultimate mechanical pocketable 35mm for me is the Rollei 35; the meter is uncoupled & its use therefore optional.
I'm off on my travels shortly, and it will be the XA2 in one pocket for general & family snaps, and an Ensign Autorange 20 in the other for 6x9 landscapes 🙂 .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
How has your photography changed over the years?
3 4 5
Replies
90
Views
8K
Bolo Kukus
B
J
The Downsized SLR Revolution of the ‘70s and ‘80s
2 3
Replies
58
Views
8K
shawn
S
J
35mm Still-Picture Photography: It began with scale focusing cameras! Back To Basics. Part 1, From the first to half-frame 35s of then and now.
Replies
10
Views
1K
Jason Schneider
J
J
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
Replies
9
Views
1K
aoresteen
aoresteen
J
  • Article Article
Did Nikon really blow Leitz and Zeiss out of the water in 1950? Not quite, but....
2 3
Replies
40
Views
9K
Tincup
T
Back
Top Bottom