Olympus XA Metering Woes

[Mike Gallagher]

I have THREE Olympus XA's. I got all of them for roughly $25. I'll probably sell one on ebay for much money and the other two will just pay for themselves that way...

Anyway, one thing I've noticed about the three is that the metering is pretty inconsistent from one XA to another under the same lighting conditions. I believe these cameras have a stepless shutter so there's no way for me give exact measurements but I'll try my best to give you an example of the variation between the three cameras.

Here I am at my computer. I will point each camera to the corner of my white printer. The cameras are all set to f/2.8, 800 ASA.

XA number one: 1/30
XA number two: Slightly above 1/30
XA number three: 1/4

While number one and two aren't that far off from each other, it's number three that seems to be having some issues.

The only observable difference between three and the rest is that its distance scale is in meters, while the other two are in feet. Perhaps number three came from Japan.

Do you think this is just a matter of adjusting the meter?

And, on that note, lets say I wanted to adjust all of them. Probably my most accurate form of metering is my digital Canon Rebel XT. It's a DSLR. I do hear, however, that many DSLR's have ISO ratings that are a bit 'off.' Meaning that when set to ISO 100, the REAL ISO value could actually be 150. I'll have to track down that info though.

Any help would be lovely!

Thank you!

 

[sbug]

I just got my XA so I can't yet comment on the metering accuracy of my copy but if you are looking to adjust the meter, you can find a repair manual here:
http://www.kyphoto.com/classics/repairmanuals.html
I'd suggest calibrating it with a known to be accurate hand-held meter.

 

[nightfly]

I don't think the indicated speed in the viewfinder is necessarily what it actually exposes at. I was worried about mine but the negs always look properly exposed.

I would shoot with all of them at the same object and verify that the speeds they are shooting at are as off as the meter indicates before adjusting.

 

[bobomoon]

Yup. Two different meters: one for the viewfinder and one through the lens. The viewfinder one has nada to do with actual exposure.

 

[Trius]

I'm not sure about the "two meters", but all conditions being equal, all three cameras should meter the same. My XAs have always agreed with an accurate handheld meter under controlled conditions.

Why would there be a separate meter for the viewfinder? I don't see that in the repair manual, only how to adjust the meter itself or the indicator arm in the viewfinder that indicates shutter speed.

 

[Tin]

I had used a XA for several years when the meter was working properly. Then suddenly and without warning, it was over by about two stops as compared to my hand-held. So I just adjusted the ASA setting and got proper exposures, at lease with colour negative films anyway. The good thing about this is that the meter is off by two stops quite consistency throughout its range, so my trick works. The only downside is that I cannot use any film faster than ASA 200, as the highest ASA value on the camera is 800. And of course I cannot purposefully under-expose when I am using ASA 200 film (with the 800 setting). Other than those minor inconveniences, I have been using that camera with that adjustment for many years since.

 

[bobomoon]

I'm not sure about the "two meters", but all conditions being equal, all three cameras should meter the same. My XAs have always agreed with an accurate handheld meter under controlled conditions.

Why would there be a separate meter for the viewfinder? I don't see that in the repair manual, only how to adjust the meter itself or the indicator arm in the viewfinder that indicates shutter speed.

You're absolutely correct. I was thinking about the om-2 which I'm fairly sure has seperate meters. Apologies.

on the other hand these are old cameras and the only way to test them is to throw some film into them. As long as the exposures look good do you really need all that viewfinder info?

 

[Trius]

Nope, if exposures are correct, the display isn't really necessary except to guide me in a decision. For example, if the VF in an XA says the shutter speed will be 1/2s, then I will adjust my aperture, if possible. If that reading in the VF is off due to an adjustment in the arm, and I know it, then I can interpret accordingly.

In the OM-2, the actual exposure is determined at time of shutter fire by the cells reading OTF, so you are correct that the display may not correspond to actual.

In Mike's case, some testing could tell which camera is "off", though I suspect it's the odd-camera-out. If it were me, I would get it adjusted, just because I don't like having cameras/meters that disagree; just drives me a bit nuts. If it's not something that can be fixed, I can live with it, but I'll try to make them all play nice!


Earl

 

[Mike Gallagher]

I can say I'm almost positive that the readings on all three cameras ARE actually the correct readings. No bent needles here--everything seems to be reading fine.

I just can't figure out how to adjust the meters... That third camera is underexposing like 3 stops!

 

[Trius]

Mike: Do you have a PDF of the repair manual? It's on the net somewhere; I may have it on my computer if you can't find it.

 

[plummerl]

The XA definitely has to CdS cells, one for exposure and one for the meter needle. It is quite possible for the needle display to be off, but expose correctly. A roll of film should help. As Scott (above) pointed out, the repair manual is at the Classic Camera Repair Forum (http://www.kyphoto.com/classics/repairmanuals.html). On page D-24 in the manual you can get into the adjustment of the meter, if you feel adventurous. Another good resource is the Olympus XA site (http://www.diaxa.com/xa/xa.htm).

 

[Trius]

Larry: Where is the second meter located?

 

[plummerl]

I believe that they sit next to each other. The ASA and aperture control moves a plate with a diminishing opening on top of the meter CdS. The repair manual shows it pretty well.

 

[Mike Gallagher]

Is THIS how you do it?

This obviously makes perfect sense. Any takers?