Olympus XA users

W

windraider

Established
Local time
7:51 AM
Joined
Apr 26, 2005
Messages
78
View My Gallery
Hi any Olympus XA users out there?

I’ve been using an XA for the last 20yrs & have noticed the following:
When focusing at objects between 0.85-2m, resolution of the subjects seem to be soft at apertures lower than f5.6. Particularly at f2.8, subject seems to be out of focus (resolution of background is soft but not as bad as subject). I’ve already checked the rangefinder accuracy by comparing lens distance readouts to measurements made via a measuring tape. The problem is gone and subject is sharp (together with background) at f8.

Anyone have a similar experience? Is this a limitation of the retro-focus len’s short focus throw or is a lens alignment problem?

Additionally when using flash in low light situations (handheld), subjects 1.5-3m away tend to be overexposed & seems out of focus, but background is usually OK.

Also from a user perspective, how would you rate the performance the XA’s lens?
My dad commented that resolution seems soft when compared with his 50/1.4 AIS Nikkor.

Would appreciate any inputs from all users.
 
Just reviewed a couple of rolls of film shot with an XA after reading your post. Most of my close shots are of kids and when they're not moving and in low light, I do see a little softness, but it's not bad or even unpleasant.

With a flash I've got some nicely focussed and well exposed shots. In fact I'll go further and say better flash pictures than with my SLR/fancy speedlite flash combos (on automatic settings). I found that the XA flash shots weren't overpowering.

Worth noting that I'm referring to pics shot generally with XP2 with a lot of exposure latitude.

Oh yeah, forgot, don't have anything much fancier than a GIII/Minox 35 GL/Canon FD primes lenses/ Yashica T5 (Tessar there) but the XA at f8 and smaller seem to be the sharpest lens I've got. Surprised the heck out of me.

Cheers,
-Amit
 
Last edited:
I like the results I am getting with the XA. I took the XA with me on a long trip to Japan. It was the perfect pocket camera. However, I have to admit that wide open shots are soft looking.
 
The XA is an innovative compact design ahead of its time. I think that & its versatility are the main reasons for its cult following. It is not so amazing, however, in terms of optical performance. I can easily name several compact cameras I've used that give sharper pictures. I'll rate its lens good but not outstanding.

The photos ( shot at f/5.6 or wider) are soft with obvious vignette; it doesn't focus close as my AF p&s ; its flash rather primitive. Yes, these are the limitations I have found in XA, but in the mean time, it offers aperture-priority control and rangefinder focusing in such small metal housing. Still a great companion for my photo walks. 🙂
 
I have an XA and can't really add much more than has already been said. While I haven't noticed really obvious vignetting in my photos, the lens can be a touch soft at the wider apertures. A fair trade-off for the extreme portability and a true rangefinder in your pocket; in my mind, the perfect vacation camera.
 
Remember, that DOF is smaller when you focus closer. And XA have one of the worst rangefinder paths I've ever seen. Maybe that is the real problem?

But still: XA is one of the best pocket cameras 🙂
 
Indeed compromises were made to achieve the camera's unique capsule design.

I have tried many other similar cameras in all price ranges, but IMO the Olympus
XA offers the best combination of features in a really compact, truly pocketable,
very usable 35mm camera for most purposes.

FWIW I know a professional photographer who sells 11 x 14 exhibition prints
taken with his Olympus XA...

"Excelsior, you fathead!"
-Chris-
 
rami said:
Remember, that DOF is smaller when you focus closer. And XA have one of the worst rangefinder paths I've ever seen. Maybe that is the real problem?
Click to expand...

I think that this hits the nail on the head... small DOF at wide apertures, a very faint rangefinder patch, and a very short focus throw.
 
An XA always at the ready in a chest pocket
will come home with far more excellent pics
than any Leica safe at home in the closet...

"Excelsior, you fathead!"
-Chris-
 
All that's been said is true, but don't forget, it wasn't engineered and built to be a posh camera. It was designed (and yes, compromises had to be made) to be affordable to all, a goal which many had considered impossible. The fact that it does perform so well, in such a small, sturdy package 20+ years later, is a testament to its build quality.
 
Its lens is sharp enough for the small enlargements I usually make but obviously a highly-corrected, full-size, optimum-element design like the Nikkor will yield much better performance with equivalent good technique. If you are in doubt, compare side by side using slow film and a heavy tripod. Focus on a page of newsprint at several working distances and use a tape measure to check focus.
 
The XA is a nice little go-anywhere compact, but metal it ain't. I believe the plastic is called Makrolon or something like that. Don't notice much falloff with mine until it gets down around 2.8, maybe 4.
 
ChrisPlatt said:
An XA always at the ready in a chest pocket
will come home with far more excellent pics
than any Leica safe at home in the closet...

"Excelsior, you fathead!"
-Chris-
Click to expand...

cool photo guys take the risk, and then they die together happily or sadly thereafter, maybe.
so the concept of XA can save your life.
 
Hi anandi, would be interested in seeing some of your photos for a comparision with the results I'm getting - care to post some online?

Just to add, the XA is an ideal camera for street photography & a performer in good lighting conditions. I'm usually happy with the XA's results from f8 & above. Results wide open is usually ok at distances above 2m.

Still trying to figure out the flash thingy. Maybe I left it on the wrong setting or something, some of my older photos taken with flash seems OK then.

Being my first camera, I'm pretty sentimental over my XA. Was worried that there might be something wrong with the camera, hence my post.

anandi said:
Just reviewed a couple of rolls of film shot with an XA after reading your post. Most of my close shots are of kids and when they're not moving and in low light, I do see a little softness, but it's not bad or even unpleasant.

With a flash I've got some nicely focussed and well exposed shots. In fact I'll go further and say better flash pictures than with my SLR/fancy speedlite flash combos (on automatic settings). I found that the XA flash shots weren't overpowering.

Worth noting that I'm referring to pics shot generally with XP2 with a lot of exposure latitude.

Oh yeah, forgot, don't have anything much fancier than a GIII/Minox 35 GL/Canon FD primes lenses/ Yashica T5 (Tessar there) but the XA at f8 and smaller seem to be the sharpest lens I've got. Surprised the heck out of me.

Cheers,
-Amit
Click to expand...
 
For a rangefinder, the XA is probably the most bang for the buck. It has a very nice 35mm lens. For (arguably) the best lens in a camera about the same size as the XA, try the Rollei 35 or 35 S, unless you are allergic to the "limitations" of full manual operation and zone/scale focus (or don't like the 40mm perspective). I use my Rollei 35 interchangeably with my Leica M3, M2, and M6, because the difference in the quality of the images is usually imperceptible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

ChrisPlatt
Olympus XA service in 2025
Replies
15
Views
525
ChrisPlatt
ChrisPlatt
P
Which camera for 28 and 50mm?
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
7K
Beemermark
Beemermark
rumbliegeos
Advice sought on a lens sale misfortune
Replies
1
Views
404
oldwino
oldwino
P
Lenses with click stop focusing rings
Replies
8
Views
1K
Ko.Fe.
Ko.Fe.
M
Moskva 5
Replies
6
Views
457
millboyold
M
Back
Top Bottom