chris00nj
Young Luddite
I got my "new" Olympus XA today. I'm already a big fan as it will fill a void in my gear: a high quality camera that fits in my pocket. I foresee me carrying and using this a lot when I don't feel bringing a larger camera.
However, I have a couple questions:
However, I have a couple questions:
- The rangefinder patch is generally hard to see, and is impossible to see in lower light. Is there a way to better this?
- While the meter seems reasonably accurate, is the meter accurate enough to reliably use slide film with its +1/3 stop tolerance?
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
1 -- centre your eye,and/or consider having the XA cleaned
2 -- yes. Kodachrome is superb in the XA
2 -- yes. Kodachrome is superb in the XA
FA Limited
missing in action
you can put some tape on the or use some black marker on the VF window to increase the contrast of the patch
planetjoe
Just some guy, you know?
I've done this, and it did make some difference for a time. I also did it on my Canon P; in the latter case it was a HUGE improvement over the stock RF/VF.
For the XA, the RF window is simply very small, and the light gathering capability (hence the contrast) of the system is limited. In the end, I sold my XA because the RF/VF was frustrating in low light, where I do much of my casual shooting.
It was a shame, though; the XA was so much fun to carry and shoot that I wish I still had it. My advice is to learn to live with it, and keep it in your kit - learn to live with its limitations and use it for its strengths.
Enjoy!
Cheers,
--joe.
mh2000
Well-known
yes, the RF sucks... they sucked even when brand new (I bought mine new). The lenses are only ok IMO... I think they had to make some serious compromises to make such a compact design. In the end I am more happy with my Minox GL, better optics, better scale for guess focusing and even smaller... not that I plan on selling my XA, but I don't use it much either...
drewbarb
picnic like it's 1999
Yes, the XA is a great camera to stick in your pocket. Ther RF patches in the ones I've had all suck- but the distance scale on top of the focusing ring is easy to read. By estimating subject distance and understanding D.O.F., it's pretty easy to get good sharp results quickly without trying to focus through the finder; just be careful shooting close up. Indeed, th e coverage and generous depth of field is a real benefit to the 35mm focal length lens. Remembering that at six feet away, your field of vision is six feet wide helps too. If you apply some thought to what you are doing, it's pretty easy to shoot with this camera without looking through it at all.
It's always my fault when film- including chromes- I put through my XA's is poorly exposed. (Of course, as always, test new gear.)
It's always my fault when film- including chromes- I put through my XA's is poorly exposed. (Of course, as always, test new gear.)
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
The lens doesn't suck. Period.
My VF and patch work well. No, not as bright and contrasty as ZI, M, R or even my 35SP. But it is quite useable and while low light is more challenging, of can be done with practice. YMMV.
My VF and patch work well. No, not as bright and contrasty as ZI, M, R or even my 35SP. But it is quite useable and while low light is more challenging, of can be done with practice. YMMV.
chris00nj
Young Luddite
Thanks for the tip and I think through dumb luck ended up with an even better solution.
I kept trying to put tape in the right position with minimal viewfinder blockage, but it was never to my satisfaction. What ended up happening is that the glue residue left by me repeitvely pulling the tape off provided enough of a block to make the rangefinder very apparent in low light. The glue residue also isn't strong enough to block any of the viewfinder, as a black marker or a larger piece of tape might.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
The meters were accurate when new. No telling whether your particular meter is still accurate after 30+ years though. You'll just have to shoot a roll or two and find out.
The rangefinder patch is ... well, ... the viewfinder is small, and so is the patch. This isn't ideal for low light work. If yours is even dimmer than usual though, the obvious solutions are to either replace the mirror or clean the viewfinder, depending on which solution seems most likely to work best. I never did think much of that "brighten the patch by putting black tape on the viewfinder" fix. It's like patching bellows: a temporary solution to the problem at best. Seems to me that the best solution would be to replace the mirror with one that has slightly lowered transmission characteristics and that gives you a brighter patch. Alternatively, if the mirror is working as it should, you could try replacing the viewfinder window in front of the mirror with a piece of glass from a 1 stop neutral density filter.
The rangefinder patch is ... well, ... the viewfinder is small, and so is the patch. This isn't ideal for low light work. If yours is even dimmer than usual though, the obvious solutions are to either replace the mirror or clean the viewfinder, depending on which solution seems most likely to work best. I never did think much of that "brighten the patch by putting black tape on the viewfinder" fix. It's like patching bellows: a temporary solution to the problem at best. Seems to me that the best solution would be to replace the mirror with one that has slightly lowered transmission characteristics and that gives you a brighter patch. Alternatively, if the mirror is working as it should, you could try replacing the viewfinder window in front of the mirror with a piece of glass from a 1 stop neutral density filter.
MXP
Established
I think the rangefinder patch is ok but not as good as more expensive cameras (Leica, Voigtländer etc.). Try to hold the camera up in front of you with light comming from the back and look through the rangefinder window. It shall be very clear without any dirt.
The automatic exposure is accurate but the needle on my camera is off. It shows much to low shutter times. I have heard that many other has this problem. It is probably a variable resistor that has to be adjusted......
The automatic exposure is accurate but the needle on my camera is off. It shows much to low shutter times. I have heard that many other has this problem. It is probably a variable resistor that has to be adjusted......
chris00nj
Young Luddite
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
The display in the VF sometimes appears to be off. The actual exposure will be fine unless the meter needs calibration.
MXP
Established
The actual shutter times are correct. But meter my meter shows shutter times which are to slow so I don't look at it but I listen to the shutter to hear if the shutter sounds to slow to be hand held. If is sounds as one click it is ok. Two clicks very fast after each other then the snutter time is about 1/15 and it may be ok......it depends
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
The actual shutter times are correct. But meter my meter shows shutter times which are to slow so I don't look at it but I listen to the shutter to hear if the shutter sounds to slow to be hand held. If is sounds as one click it is ok. Two clicks very fast after each other then the snutter time is about 1/15 and it may be ok......it depends
With good technique the XA is good to 1/4s or maybe slower.
FallisPhoto
Veteran
The actual shutter times are correct. But meter my meter shows shutter times which are to slow so I don't look at it but I listen to the shutter to hear if the shutter sounds to slow to be hand held. If is sounds as one click it is ok. Two clicks very fast after each other then the snutter time is about 1/15 and it may be ok......it depends
Is the battery fresh? are the contacts clean?
MXP
Established
Yes battery and contacts are ok. I think the problem with meter showing to slow shutter speed but actual speed ok may be a problem with a component which may have changed over time....e.g. a variable resistor. Most XA's may have developed this problem over time?
MarkoKovacevic
Well-known
The only problems I had with my XA were dim RF, which I fixed with black tape, and seals gummed up, which I replaced today!
ludoo
Established
There are a few resistors on top which I think are tied to the meter indicator in the viewfinder and might have drifted off (carbon resistors tend to age with time).
Or something simpler might have happened if the camera has been opened in the past: the meter assembly might have moved slightly from its correct position. It happened on my XA when I cleaned the rangefinder, and given that the top cover tends to get stuck when you remove it, I think it's a pretty frequent occurrence, frequent enough that there's a drawing with the correct alignment in the XA service manual.
The fix is pretty easy: the indicator assembly pivots on a central screw, so you can gently rotate it until it points to the correct speed. See this pic
On my XA, I aligned it by putting a tiny bit of upward (as my meter indicated faster speeds) pressure in one of the two elongated holes you see left of the screw keeping the indicator assembly in place.
Whatever you do to the indicator has no effect on the programmed exposure as the two circuits are different.
Last edited:
MXP
Established
Thank you very much for the fine images. My XA has never been opened but the meter may have turned a bit. As you write the shutter times are ok regardless of what the meter shows and this is the most important. It is a shame such a good lens is put into such a poor body most of the body is made of plastic. Funny that the back is made of metal. But the camera works very well I must admit.
most of the body is made of plastic. Funny that the back is made of metal. But the camera works very well I must admit.