Holy cow! Oly XA takes great pics.

[anandi]

I picked up a well used XA on *bay about 3 weeks ago, shot a test roll of film to ensure that it was okay (vanilla Fuji Superia 400) and got back an okay set of prints. I figured, nice enough camera, it'll do when I need something in a pinch.

Today I got back a 36 of Ilford XP2 prints and was astounded by the image quality. I got a heck of a lot more contrast out of these shots than this film had any right to deliver and even my flash shots (with the A11) turned out very nice. When I got the focus & aperature right, the sharpness of the print rivalled anything else I've got (okay so I don't have an M-mount Leica or anything). I'd read some glowing reviews for this thing before buying, but I have to say that it gives more consistent shots than my Minox 35GL with some more control, is more portable than any other camera I have and doesn't attract the attention of an SLR or even the bigger RFs that I have.

Any other C-41 film recommendations? B/W processing isn't cost effective for me as I can't do it myself.

Cheers,
-A

 

[captainslack]

Yes, the Oly XA is a little wonder, isn't it? Every time I look at the pics I've taken with mine, I'm blown away at the engineering it took to put such a sharp lens into such a tiny camera! In fact, I even got one for my sister-in-law when her Nikon P&S broke! 🙂

Unfortunately, the RF patch on mine is very dim, so I don't use it too much. I'll get it fixed one day, but I've got higher priorities, I'm afriad. 🙁

 

[maxim]

show some pics please 🙂

 

[bmattock]

http://www.growlery.com/manhattan/

 

[ChrisPlatt]

The Olympus XA is a wonderful, truly pocketable camera.

Mine has always yielded sharp negs, and has never
exhibited the oft-claimed light falloff in the corners.

A professional photographer I know
sells exhibition prints taken with his XA.

Enjoy!

Excelsior, you fathead!
-Chris-

 

[Trius]

Well, as a certified Zuikoholic, I have to agree that the XA is a great little camera, and has "no right" to produce the type of negs it does. I too have never noticed falloff that some claim. I firmly believe that there is some variability in samples.

As I type this, I have an XA print from a Tri-X neg (HC-110), framed and overmatted, on the wall across from me. It is printed full frame; even up close you would swear the shot was taken by a "real" camera, maybe even from a 120 neg cropped. The picture is of a meadow at sunrise, shot into the sun as it just cleared distant trees. The trees are backlight and Zone I, the light plays on the grasses in the middle, rendering them softly in Zones III to VI, and the taller grasses in the foreground are Zones I - III. Everything is sharp. IIRC, the XA was mounted on a tripod. Yes, it seems ridiculous to put a little "snapshooter" on a tripod, but I wanted to extract maximum quality from the little jewel. I have a similar shot (although horizontal) made with my Toyo 4x5 field camera from the same location at the same time. Naturally, the quality of a 4x5 shot is higher in some respects, but I would not be embarassed to hang both shots side by side.

I have two XAs, one is not functioning, the other works well but needs a CLA especially to brighten the viewfinder. I might give one to my son (though I do like having two, one for colour, one for B&S), but I will not sell either one.

The only thing I would change about the XA would be full manual control. I don't think it would be possible given the camera's dimensions, and some degree of control is possible by changing the ASA and using the backlight compensation switch.

OK, now I'm on the lookout for an XA-4 at a real bargain price! ;-)

Trius

 

[DougK]

I love my XA as well and I've never noticed an issue with falloff either. When it comes time for a vacation, this is the camera I make sure to pack. I know it can get the job done and I'll take it places I'd never dream of packing an SLR outfit. I agree with Trius though; it would have been lovely if they could have fit full manual control in there but I usually shoot in aperture-priority anyway.

I know this is a total pipe dream but wouldn't it be great if enough people could convince Olympus to reissue a limited edition of the XA?

 

[rovnguy]

I was introduced to this little gem about five years ago and it never ceases to amaze me with the high quality negatives and slides. Because it is so small most people don't take it seriously. For shooting people on the street, this is a godsend. I have found that every camera that Mr. Maitani designed is not only a pleasure to shoot, but the results are always high quality. I know the rangrfinder patch takes some getting used to, but once you master it, wonderful things begin to happen. About half of the images in my gallery were made with my XA.

 

[Stanton]

And, since I own an XA and XA2's and an XA3, the 2 and 3 appear to me to be about as good. Finally the XA4 is as good as all of them with the advantage of the wider angle 28mm v 35mm, and macro focussing.

 

[Trius]

Doug: A new limited edition? What a wonderful idea! I'm afraid Olympus given up on any new film cameras. If Maitani were still there, I think it could get done. But with the current designers and product managers, I'm afraid we'll have to make do with CLAs on existing cameras.

Trius

 

[Roman]

Well, I have to say that both my XAs (one has died in the meantime) did have the fall-off/vignetting - but only at f/2.8 (where it was VERY obvious) and F/4, stopped down it disappears; as for everything else, I agree - the lens is stunningly sharp, it is very convenient as a pocket camera, and I love the soft-touch shutter, which makes it very handholdable down to at least 1/15, even despite its low weight. I also love the long auto-exposure times - with a small table-top tripod it is a great combo for city nightshots when travelling.

Roman

 

[Time Freeze]

Does the XA2 give similiar results?

 

[ray_g]

Everything Roman said. Here's one from my gallery wide open at 1/15. Soft wide open, but it's right in your pocket when the opportunity arises.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=9356&cat=4876&page=1

 

[Stanton]

I think it's results are comparable. I scan my negatives and print on an inkjet printer. My maximum size is letter size, but realistically, about 8x10. I can't tell the difference. The XA2 is scale focus rather than rangefinder. I typically am using 400 ISO print film, usually Fuji. With that film speed and a 35mm focal length lens, the depth of field takes care of most focusing issues. I worry less about carrying the XA2 around because without the rangefinder, I think it can take more bouncing. Of course the size is the same and it uses the same flashes.