Olympus XA Disappointment

[TheDutch]

Hi everyone,

I've been looking out for an Olympus XA for some time to replace my frustratingly dire Lomo (bought cheap, sold expensive so not all bad news!). Picked up a seemingly good example from Ebay, and have just got a trial roll of film developed.

See what you think below, but I am not impressed with the sharpness of the pictures, especially the focus-to-infinity shots, which were taken at F16 or so. My question is whether this could be due to an out of spec camera, if it could be the out of date, cheap film I'm using to test with, or if it's simply how it is with the XA. Taken with ASA 100 film.

Best : http://www.dinplug.com/stuff/BubblesB.jpg

Typical : http://www.dinplug.com/stuff/XATest011.jpg

Infinity : http://www.dinplug.com/stuff/XATest014Web.jpg

All in all I don't think it's quite up to my expectations, and if I don't see much improvement with a good roll of film it'll probably go back on Ebay. So far it just seems a bit too Lomo - there's even more vignetting than I might have expected. Any tips or help to get better results would be appreciated.

Neil

 

[Graham Line]

You should get sharper results than that with a good XA. Try shooting a scene with some depth (down the street or something) and note your focus point, so you can tell if the focusing is accurate. Mine returns its best results around f8.

 

[Austintatious]

Hi,
I have both the XA & XA2. You should get some what better results than this. I have an 8x12 framed print of mountains in Colorado taken @ infinity at f16. It 's tack sharp. They seem to like faster film. I use ASA 400 in them. Here is a link to the XA collextive in flickr. Lots of nice examples there of what the XA can do.
http://www.flickr.com/groups/olympusxa/

Charles

 

[rogue_designer]

Some of that could be diffraction at f16 - but maybe it took a hard knock and got slightly out of alighment.

 

[ampguy]

yup

yup

f16 is not the sweet spot for this lens, iirc it's 5.6 and 8, maybe 11.

Some of that could be diffraction at f16 - but maybe it took a hard knock and got slightly out of alighment.

 

[Meleica]

if you believe Modern Photography, November 1979's test report, F11 has the highest center and edge resolution, followed by F8 and then F16.

Free XA manual found here:

http://www.diaxa.com/xa/Assets/Olymp_XA.pdf

I prefer the modern Olympus Stylus Epic...see my report here

http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/epic.htm

Dan

 

[Kragmeister]

I've got an XA also and was dissapointed with the results. Sharpness was OK, I wasn't expecting alot. But I don't like the vignetting. I tend to use 400 ASA film and shoot wide open and got the XA as a backup camera to my Bessa R with 35mm f2.5 Color Skopar. The XA is not even close, however it is still a good camera to toss in the pocket or take in harms way.

Later,
Greg

 

[sevres_babylone]

I agree with the comments about using an aperture larger than F16. One thing that I found with mine is that I cannot handhold it well at slower shutter speeds (1/30th for instance) because the shutter on mine doesn't seem all that smooth. That might vary from sample to sample. That said, I don't think the lens is as sharp as on the Stylus Epic, for example.

 

[sleepyhead]

Well, unfortunately, it sounds like you didn't get a good example of this fine camera. I've been using the XA since they came out in the early 1980s (hazy hazy), and a good one is GOOD. The vignetting never bothered me much.

There are a few pictures from the XA in my gallery. Attached is one from the 1990s.

If you want a small carry-everywhere RF, then I would keep looking for a good example. Bummer on the one you got. Good luck, Yaron

 

[TheDutch]

Well I am going to reserve judgement until I get the next roll developed, but I guess things don't look too good! I've been out with a tape measure to do a few self-timed test shots at F11 with ASA 400 film, and will post results in due course.

I am a bit deterred by it all, but DO like the size and functionality of the XA in principle, even despite finding the focussing patch hard to see. Are there any other cameras that offer the same pocketability with this kind of function? Maybe I should go the Epic route, but I feel if I do that I might as well just be buying a digital point-and-shoot.

 

[sleepyhead]

Hi, the 35mm f/2.8 lens on the Epic is REALLY LOVELY - better than the one on the XA in my opinion. My Epic died when I got sea-water on it, but before that I got some really nice pictures from it. Great bokeh on that lens believe it or not. The main reason I never replaced it was that there is no way to permanently turn the flash off, such as with a switch like on the Contax T2 or Ricoh Gr1. Turning the flash off manually all the time by cycling through the like button system on the Epic nearly drove me nuts.

Anyway, I think it's wise to try another roll in the XA before you give up on it. Good luck.

 

[Trius]

I agree that this XA is sub-par; even at f16 it should be sharper than that. I would have it serviced. I aslo think the film didn't help.

sevres, you should definitely be able to handhold much lower than 1/30. If the release doesn't feel smooth, then that is a definite problem. Exposures at 1/4 second such as

are certainly possible.

 

[Bill58]

Well Maybe I should go the Epic route, but I feel if I do that I might as well just be buying a digital point-and-shoot.

A good digital will cost you three or four times that of a good used Epic and you gain nothing, except film processing cost. The Fuji F30 looks good in low light, but sucks for daytime shots. The GRD looks good too, but is pricey as hell and has had some reliability problems.

Everything is a compromise it seems. What's most important to you?

 

[jaapv]

I used to have one, the vignetting was about the same as yours, after all, it is a pretty simple lens. As for sharpness, looking at the last (landscape) shot, it seems to be misfocussing, the foreground has better focus than the horizon.

 

[Meleica]

As I said before, spring for a new Stylus Epic for $ 95 or a used one for $ 50 and you will get a camera that is SHARPER than the XA, has a built in flash that works perfectly for fill flash, same size as the xa, auto winding and rewind etc....

 

[pvenables]

Neil

Persevere with it, and shoot some at 5.6 or 8. I bought the wife one for a back-up Valentine's Day present. She took it on holiday to Palermo in February and some of the shots [on Kodak Ultra 400, I think, which seems to suit the camera extremely well] were BRILLIANT, so brilliant as to wonder I was bothering with an M6. But at wider apertures her pictures seem to be sharper down one side of the frame than the other, and I suspect that it wouldn't be best at f16 either. I have seen beautiful out-of-focus areas with this lens when it gets it right.

Hope that helps.

Paul

 

[clintock]

Try an xa2- they might be the best deal there is on ebay right now. Shooting stopped down the xa rangefinder is just a needless distraction, the xa2 zone focus is more than good enough.

 

[sleepyhead]

In addition to the XA, I've also used an XA2 for several years. I agree with clintock - it is a fantastic buy at like 10 quid on Ebay. The 35mm f/3.5 lens is a tiny bit sharper than the XAs in my experience, with less vignetting, but I don't use it as much as the XA, because I like the XA wide open and close up with a bit of out-of-focus in the background. The XA2 is more suited to situations in which you want pretty deep depth of field. I tend to use the XA with slow film so i can keep it open wide, but the XA with 400-800 ASA, in which case it makes a great discrete street shooter.

Attached is a photo with an XA, wide open at perhaps 1.2 meters. Sorry, but I don't have any XA2 shots handy at the moment.

 

[vrgard]

In addition to the XA, I've also used an XA2 for several years. I agree with clintock - it is a fantastic buy at like 10 quid on Ebay. The 35mm f/3.5 lens is a tiny bit sharper than the XAs in my experience, with less vignetting, but I don't use it as much as the XA, because I like the XA wide open and close up with a bit of out-of-focus in the background. The XA2 is more suited to situations in which you want pretty deep depth of field. I tend to use the XA with slow film so i can keep it open wide, but the XA with 400-800 ASA, in which case it makes a great discrete street shooter.

Attached is a photo with an XA, wide open at perhaps 1.2 meters. Sorry, but I don't have any XA2 shots handy at the moment.

Well said, sleepyhead. My experience exactly. The only further comment I have is that the XA does work well at f5.6 & 8 feet where it sorta does the same zone focusing thing as an XA2 (notice that those settings on the camera are in orange, rather than white, as a reminder). That's how I use an XA as a quick p&s camera. All this allows the XA to work well as a small dof camera as you so clearly show and also as an easy p&s camera when desired. Considering the form factor, it sure makes for a great carry-everywhere camera.

By the way, great shot of that child amongst the church pews!

-Randy

 

[Trius]

As I said before, spring for a new Stylus Epic for $ 95 or a used one for $ 50 and you will get a camera that is SHARPER than the XA, has a built in flash that works perfectly for fill flash, same size as the xa, auto winding and rewind etc....

... And has no manual control of aperture or other overrides. My XAs have been very sharp; wish I had a Stylus Epic to do some direct comparisons, but then there is sample variation, right?