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

[wblynch]

The XA2 has a tendency to underexpose.

First, make sure you have new silver oxide batteries. The XA uses power to hold the shutter open and cheap batteries or dead ones won't hold it. Throw those $1 junkers away. Your lost film costs more than a pair of proper batteries.


Second, i found with mine that I have to set the film ASA to half box speed. For 400 film I set it at 200.

Then I finally got good exposures.

 

[wblynch]

...You can tell which is which by the little people, the early XA2 has taller people, and the later has shorter people..

Cool observation. Thanks

 

[02Pilot]

I just got an XA4. It was ugly, clearly used hard, and jammed, but it was cheap. I cleaned it, unjammed it (stuck rewind button), and put some new SR44s in it. It's still ugly, but it seems to be functional.

The test roll of Tri-X showed significant underexposure. I set the ISO to 200, as I normally shoot Tri-X at half box speed (bulk loaded, so no DX coding). Most of the roll was shot outdoors yesterday, when it was bright, sunny, and about 25degF, with some snow in places - these shots were all underexposed to varying degrees. A few frames were shot indoors to test focus - these shots were exposed nearly perfectly. Developing was controlled properly and verified OK by edge markings.

I started testing (meter subject, trip shutter and observe behavior through open camera back, compare to program chart in XA4 user manual) and it seems like the meter does, as suggested by someone above, overreact to bright light-colored subjects (snow-covered ground, white monitor screen) by about two stops. It seems to be right on with more non-reflective subjects.

I don't know how temperature might affect this - testing was done indoors - but it seems like it could be an additional factor. Any insight on this?

 

[Red Robin]

Found my xa w/A11 on the cheep counter with all the p&s through aways. All were marked at the price of about $1.03. That was about 14 years ago. Give it a workout each year- -- it always comes through. Recently added it to a rangefinder bag as a backup cam. Lite, accurate reliable. what more do I need?

 

[FrankS]

Besides the lens and its compact size, a great thing about the xa4 is that it's viewfinder is less squinty than the other models. What are they going for these days?

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

The XA2 holds the record here (jointly with a mju-I) as the cheapest camera I ever bought, at 49p; that's 49 pennies for anyone doubting it. It worked OK too, just needed SR44's and film.

And they can be repaired or checked and made even better, although I've only done it with one of them, a red one from memory as I wanted to sell it...

Regards, David

 

[nongfuspring]

Besides the lens and its compact size, a great thing about the xa4 is that it's viewfinder is less squinty than the other models. What are they going for these days?

Working ones are normally well over 120 USD and I've seen mint ones go for north of 200. I think the ones with the OEM macro measuring tape are worth even more. Cool camera, but considering their reputation for longevity way too expensive for me.

 

[Trius]

I've never had anything other than the original XA, and the vast majority of exposures have been good if not dead on, including with reversal film. The backlight compensation switch works for most situations with strong light sources.

If the RF focusing gets in the way, just use hyperfocal focusing.

 

[Spavinaw]

What? You can't mount filters on your XA camera. Of course you can !! I do it all the time (or maybe not ALL the time). All you need is a Cokin filter bracket whose sole purpose in life is to adapt Cokin filters to cameras like the XA's that have no filter ring around the lens. I will admit that using this bracket is more fiddly by several orders of magnitude than anything else I can think of, but it does work.

 

[______]

I have an XA, but the rangefinder is so dim as to be unusable. I just load it up with Delta 400, set focus to the hyperfocal setting (red), set the aperture to f11, and shoot away. It is with me in the car all the time.

 

[viridari]

Let's say, tiny Yashica Electro 35 MC (not same as GSN). I wonder why XA is cult camera and MC isn't.

Because the XA is almost the exact dimensions of my wallet and has nothing on it to cause "pocket drag". It is, literally, the camera I can take anywhere that I'm wearing pants. The Yashica and any other camera with a protruding lens gets propelled out to another more distant ring of everyday carry convenience. Says nothing about the quality of the Yashica, just the convenience of using it.

My other pocket carry camera is a Yashica T4. Though it's not a RF camera (strictly P&S).

I have an XA, but the rangefinder is so dim as to be unusable. I just load it up with Delta 400, set focus to the hyperfocal setting (red), set the aperture to f11, and shoot away. It is with me in the car all the time.

This is why my XA didn't get much use for awhile. I loved the photos from it, but I hated the RF patch. Maybe I should have spent more time on forums learning cool tricks. I've recently learned about the "sharpie trick". I wasn't brave enough to apply permanent ink to my VF so I cut out a chip from a Post-It note and applied it to the VF with tweezers. The difference is quite remarkable! I might try this again with something more opaque like electrical tape (aka "black tape"). I still see light coming through the translucent paper patch.

 

[hap]

"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.

That's a quote ...only the galaxy?

 

[Pál_K]

I have and use both the XA2 and XA.

My XA2 will produce soft images at larger apertures; my XA is undeniably better there. I’m lucky that my rangefinder patch is still contrasty and easy to use.

Note that XA’s are more fragile with respect to the meter. Don’t drop an XA. Actually, there are two CdS cells: one for the shutter speed display and another for the actual exposure. Strange but true.

The best website I’ve found for all XA cameras and accessories (click on the red squares):

http://www.diaxa.com/xastart.htm

 

[Doug]

From Belomo, this is the closest I have to an Olympus XA, clearly an attempted copy.

 

[tbhv55]

From Belomo, this is the closest I have to an Olympus XA, clearly an attempted copy.

Interesting... I was unaware of this camera. It is strikingly similar, although it looks as though the designers weren't quite as good as Mr Maitani at 'compressing' the internals into such a limited space! 🙂

What is it like to use? And how are the results?

Also, (and here, I'm presuming that you've handled/used an XA, at some point) how does it stand up against the XA?

 

[Doug]

I have not handled or used an XA, so no comparison is possible. Here are some notes I made about the Belomo Elikon...

Fixed 35mm f/2.8-22 Minitar-2, leaf shutter, aperture priority auto with manual exposure. Released for sale 1992. Very compact pocket camera measuring 111x76x66mm with nice features and build quality. Viewfinder not too bright, and rangefinder spot is on the fuzzy side. Shutter speeds B, 10 - 1/500 sec. Detachable flash bracket can be seen on the side.
On the top plate it says "АВТОМАТ ВЫДЕРЖКИ" which means automatic exposure. On the front it's identified as an "ЭЛИКОН" and the lens is a МИНИТАР-2 f/2.8 35mm.
Quite clearly it's a copy of the popular Olympus XA rangefinder camera, with somewhat more squared styling. The lens is awful! Severe non-linear linear distortion. It goes suddenly very barrel-distorted around the outside of the frame. Unusable, really, unless this obvious fault is used in some funky artistic way.

 

[tbhv55]

I have not handled or used an XA, so no comparison is possible. Here are some notes I made about the Belomo Elikon...

Fixed 35mm f/2.8-22 Minitar-2, leaf shutter, aperture priority auto with manual exposure. Released for sale 1992. Very compact pocket camera measuring 111x76x66mm with nice features and build quality. Viewfinder not too bright, and rangefinder spot is on the fuzzy side. Shutter speeds B, 10 - 1/500 sec. Detachable flash bracket can be seen on the side.
On the top plate it says "АВТОМАТ ВЫДЕРЖКИ" which means automatic exposure. On the front it's identified as an "ЭЛИКОН" and the lens is a МИНИТАР-2 f/2.8 35mm.
Quite clearly it's a copy of the popular Olympus XA rangefinder camera, with somewhat more squared styling. The lens is awful! Severe non-linear linear distortion. It goes suddenly very barrel-distorted around the outside of the frame. Unusable, really, unless this obvious fault is used in some funky artistic way.

Thanks for the write-up. As you say, it's self-evidently a copy of the XA - albeit slightly larger, and rather more square. The inclusion of a "fuzzy" rangefinder spot would seem to be further evidence of an intention to emulate the XA...!! 😉 😀

The edge-distortion certainly does look nasty, but leaving that aside, the overall quality doesn't look too bad (or, at least... it looks Ok at the size of the posted example).

Presumably, its real-terms retail price would have been a lot lower than the XA's? (I note that it was released in 1992, whereas the XA ran from 1979-1985)

 

[Doug]

...Presumably, its real-terms retail price would have been a lot lower than the XA's? (I note that it was released in 1992, whereas the XA ran from 1979-1985)

When I got it in 2005 it was marked as "used" and I paid $180. Looked new... came with flash bracket, wrist strap, manual and original box.

 

[David Hughes]

I got the XA new when they first appeared and since then have had the entire range; so XA, XA1, XA2, XA3 and XA4. I like them all, they all have strong points and all have weaknesses but do all cameras. I still don't know which one I like the most but I sold the XA4 as the cord on it got in the way.

My 2d worth is that the XA is lovely, the XA1 and XA2 are practical and the XA3 an improvement as it has the +1½ and DX added. For carrying all the time the XA2 and 3 are best; not as fragile as the XA, no button sticking out as the XA1 and no cord needed as the XA4.

One other advantage is that you can buy them for pennies now and then (not on eBay) and they are repairable.

Regards, David