Favorite XA (all types) hacks & is the XA2 lens better?

[eli griggs]

I'm sure I'm not the only photographer to have fantasied at one point or another about finding a way to use filters with or make a lens shade for, a XA camera of one sort or another.

Years ago, with my first XA, I would sometimes hold Kodak gel filters for b&w in front of the lens and as I did so, I'd wonder, what can I do to make this easier, without wrecking my camera?'.

Tonight I read in an older thread where some folks are using duck tape to secure XA cameras to street signs, etc for steady rest. What do you do with your XA class cameras to enhance or augment it's photographic potential?

How here has tried to improve fading rangefinder focusing with colored filter or markers or bits of black tape and how did it work out for you?

I'd also like to know your opinion; is the XA2 lens a better lens than the original XA glass?

Having only XA2s at the moment and wondering where I can find this 'cult' camera at a reasonable price, I have to ask, is it worth the effort and extra expense over the cameras I have now, image wise that is? In a side by side, which lens delivers the best image and , if there IS a difference, why is it better?

Lets hear it, what's your take on this subject... ?

Eli

 

[btgc]

I think, it's hard to compare them. Simply because XA lets you set aperture, while XA2 doesn't. Comparing f2.8 to f8 is mixing apples to oranges. Guessing what aperture chose XA2 is task I'd do after I've finished taking pics.

XA2 has nice, sharp and contrasty lens. When I want to be sure about aperture, I grab any from those compact cameras allowing this adjustment. Let's say, tiny Yashica Electro 35 MC (not same as GSN). I wonder why XA is cult camera and MC isn't. In fact, MC does the same what XA does and costs nothing. Oh, it's scale focus only. It takes regular 46mm screw-in filters, not rare unusual size push-on filters. XA shooters who use RF focusing with tiny and long ago faded patch, will be disappointed. Sorry, in this respect MC can not substitute XA. Sorry again.
Most important feature of XA is aperture control, missing on XA2. Not lens, not VF, not anything else.

I just wish I would start using MC before reading too much on "cult cameras", I'd have taken much more pictures. That said, opportunity to try many great cameras can become pitfall, trapping shooter in realm of test shots and periods of adaptation.

And finally, if you want XA so badly, just get it and see that pictures look very similar to pics from XA2 🙂

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

I used to use an XA4 (the 28mm f3.5). But they were limited production and rarely available now. Mine got trashed in a street accident in China. Well worth looking out for.

As for duck/duct tape I'd prefer to use gaffer tape because of no sticky residue. Although in one of the Star Wars movies there is the line "Duct tape is like the Force, it has a light side and a dark side, and it binds the Galaxy together".

 

[nightfly]

"The force is an energy field creating by all living things. It surrounds us, it penetrates us, it binds the galaxy together."

Sorry my inner Star Wars geek was offended.

The XA's rangefinder patch is of limited utility. You end up basically scale focusing it anyway. As for the lens it's OK. Lots of flare and vignetting. Not sure how it compares to the XA2 but I wouldn't spend too much on an XA for the lens. For the kind of quick snapshot photos that I think you end up using the XA for, the ability to set the aperture is also I think over-rated. The lens is faster than the XA2 though, 2.8 vs 3.5 which could make a difference.

I like the design of all the XA's better than almost any other super compact camera. They are tiny, quiet and the sliding lens cap blows (barn) doors on the Contax T1 or Minox Style cover.

 

[newspaperguy]

Both are super-silent and great stealth cameras...
no one looks twice at you when you're shooting one.
I have both - pre focus the XA, jus like the XA2 - so not
much difference in using either one.
Very little difference in the results IMO.

 

[bmattock]

I think the XA rangefinder patch is fine - depending on your own specimen. Some are faded, no doubt.

I do own both, and I like the XA2, but in general, I have found the XA to have a demonstrably-better lens than the XA2. I have (had) two of each, so I had a slightly larger sample size that perhaps typical.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

nightfly: Thank you for the clarification.


I am very tempted by the XA's much newer cousin the mju-V which was expensive when new but now very affordable LNIB from Ffordes or Luton Cameras. This is the polished aluminum camera with sliding cover like the XA.

 

[shadowfox]

The lens on the XA is fine and dandy, good day! 🙂
However, the lens on XA4 simply rocks!

 

[bmattock]

I really like that photo, Will.

 

[agi]

I agree with Will. The XA4 "simply rocks". Another piece advice I got from Will is try shooting E6 with it. I never even considered it until he showed us some photos.

 

[Trius]

@ f2.8, the XA-2 lens doesn't even come close to the XA lens.

 

[Trius]

The XA's rangefinder patch is of limited utility.

I get along with mine quite nicely, thank you. Some XAs need a cleaning due to age of course, maybe some will never be useful due to deterioration of the patch because of environmental factors. But a good one performs quite well. You also have to learn to centre your eye. In dim light the patch is problematic, I'll give you that. But a blanket statement that the XA patch is of limited utility is, IMO, not correct.

 

[shadowfox]

I really like that photo, Will.

Glad you like it Bill, my daughter took that one, the XA4 fits her hands (she was three) 🙂

 

[shadowfox]

I agree with Will. The XA4 "simply rocks". Another piece advice I got from Will is try shooting E6 with it. I never even considered it until he showed us some photos.

... and kids, yeah that's you newcomers to RFF, if you want to see a proper street-photography using XA4, you owe it to yourselves to check out John's Alapan blog. 😉

 

[agi]

Will you're too kind.

 

[John Hermanson]

I prefer the original XA, though the rangefinder patch is and always has been dim. With age, dust settles on the mirror and it gets dimmer. Some people have put a small piece of yellow wratten filter over the rf window and that improves contrast a little. John, www.zuiko.com

 

[mcgrattan]

I sold my XA as I didn't really get on with it. The look of the images didn't suit me and I didn't like the ergonomics [mine was all working fine, decent rangefinder patch, etc.]

I did prefer the photos I took with the XA2. I don't know for sure if they were sharper as I didn't 'stress test' the XA2 in the same way [wide open, close-up, etc.] but I certainly didn't think there was as much vignetting and the lens seemed sharper on landscape type stuff.

 

[John Lawrence]

Loved my XA and thought the lens better than the XA2. Having Leicas as well, I always found it difficult to use the rangefinder patch because of the short focus throw, so I generally used scale focus on the camera.

 

[ferider]

I'm quite impressed how the little XA handles flare. Check out

RF patch is very usable on mine, too. Still cann't believe that I got it for 20 bucks.

Roland.

 

[pompadork]

I've not used the XA only because I'd prefer something a little bigger if I'm using rangefinder focusing. I've used an XA2 for a while and enjoy it a lot.