Olympus XA users

[Trius]

Windraider: I wouldn't be depressed. From what I have read of the XA (and I have two of them now, have had 3 in total) I do suspect that there are two factors which lead to differing opinions.

First, there may be some sample variation. I have no knowledge of the manufacturing history of the XA. Given its fairly long life, it may be that there were small changes made along the way.

Second, you may need a CLA. Since the rangefinder base is so short and the patch is difficult to use under certain conditions, it's quite possible that cleaning the viewfinder and even a minor tweaking of the rangefinder would improve things dramatically.

Finally, I find the shape of the camera itself lends itself to minor camera shake that could make the difference. Shooting wide open at minimal distances would make this appear more pronunced, I think.

I agree with potart, who suggested using a tripod and doing some more controlled tests.

Earl

 

[zuikologist]

Windraider: there is a thread on RFF somewhere showing a cheap (free?) method for improving rangefinder contrast by using a darker patch over the rangefinder, on the viewfinder window. I can't find it - may be someone can help. It might assist a little with focusing the XA.

 

[anandi]

Windraider,
I don't have a scanner, but I'll try taking shots of the pics with mr digicam old time document style...anybody selling a half-decent film scanner here?

 

[ray_g]

Windraider: there is a thread on RFF somewhere showing a cheap (free?) method for improving rangefinder contrast by using a darker patch over the rangefinder, on the viewfinder window. I can't find it - may be someone can help. It might assist a little with focusing the XA.

It was basically the same as Rick Oleson's Page

 

[Beniliam]

Hi guys

I trade the Rollei 35 SE for one Xa with other member of RFF.
I only make 1 roll. I have to say that the camera is good for carry all the day with her. The rangefinder is dim, I put put the Olesson´s solution for contrast the RF. Have a nice meter, is very very quiet. The lens is good. Im dont understand much in terms of resolutions, aberrations... But compared with the Canonet QL GII 17 is less contrast wide open.

My Canonet, I dont know others, have a very nice lens. I read in some post, people talk about the quality of the Rangefinders of the 70´s. Always have good words for the Olympus and the Yashicas... I read some Brian S. answer talk about the different Canonet that he have, and the different lens quality that have his Canonet. For me is important the metering of one camera. Both, Canonet and Olympus Xa have a very good meters even for this time. I only make B/W.

I want to question you: I read that one of the characteristic of the uncoated Leica lens (and the most of that period) had that are mid - low contrast. I imagine that not all the lens of that period have 100 lines/mm in the resolution test, therefore the image appearance is similar to the characteristics that described for the XA lens, soft, but when you close 2 - 3 stop, better in all... ? I know that the Olympus lens is more modern design, have coated surface...

I put 4 photos taken with this camera. 😉

 

[Poptart]

The only thing I know about the uncoated lenses is that they have a higher flare level, which is bad for most photos but can help in available light situations by spilling more light into a scene, (almost like pre-flashing the film)--according to Schwalberg.

 

[Beniliam]

Thanks for your answer Poptart.

 

[Trius]

Here are two shots, the first made with M2/DR Summicron, the second with an XA. No exposure information given, so it may not be informative to this discussion.

http://www.geebeephoto.com/2005/05210.htm
http://www.geebeephoto.com/2005/05211.htm

 

[richard_l]

Here are two shots, the first made with M2/DR Summicron, the second with an XA. No exposure information given, so it may not be informative to this discussion.

You can see the corner light falloff in the XA shot, particularly in the top corners. The DR shot is crisper and overall just more pleasant to look at, IMO. (Very nice shot!) The XA image is not bad at all, but it is clearly in a different league.

I don't think it is fair to draw conclusions from a single example, but these images support my impression of the XA (based on using one for about 14 years). It is a little mushy and can exhibit light falloff (not too bad, but enough to be annoying at times).

 

[windraider]

While I’ve already tested the rf accuracy of my XA using measuring tape, I agree that I find it difficult to focus using the rf especially in dim lighting. I’ve often been unconvinced with the indicated distance readouts when using the rf, sometimes it shows 3m when subject is less than 1.5m! This probably means even if there is nothing wrong with my XA, I’ll probably have to get use to zone focusing and stopping down to f8 for good results.

As advised by a few, I’m going to run some more test shots using a measuring tape & tripod before I decide whether to send it for servicing. Anyway here are a few of my previous test shots:
First 2 shots are focused on the chair, first at f2.8 the other at f8.
Second shot is f2.8 but focused beyond 1.5m.

 

[Trius]

Which chair were you focusing on? The near chair is not sharp in either shot. All of the photos seem to be focused further back. Pending the results of further tests, I'd say it needs a CLA.

Earl

 

[windraider]

Yup was focusing on near chair.
This was the shot that got me questioning whether there was a lens alignment problem with my XA. But with my previous experience on how inaccurate my rf focusing is, I thought I do better confirm it with a tape & tripod test.

My other thoughts wrt richard_l's comments:
- XA's lens doesn't seem to take flare & high contrast situations very well. Highlights tend to white out even for shots focused at infinity and stopped down to f8 or smaller.
- lens doesn't seem to resolve fine details of distant subjects very well, resolution seemed a bit smooth (mushy?).
- don’t really see the light fall off unless wide-open and against a white wall.

But I suppose the character of the lens is part of the XA’s charm.
Photos seem to have an artistic, classical old-world feel.
The photos I take of small children(when focus is not totally off) in bright lighting conditions & colorful backgrounds usually have a dream like quality.
Resolution and contrast tend to be better in subdued lighting (if I don’t shake the camera).
Ironically the XA is my favorite choice for night photography. Stopped down to f8, braced against a small tripod & using the self-timer, results are stunning.

 

[windraider]

Just an update.
I did a tape & tripod test which confirmed that the focus of the XA was off.
Sent it for a CLA and the technician told me the focus was off by as much as 1.5m!
Suspected that this was caused when the camera had its film transport mechanism repaired 2 yrs ago. Apparently the previous technician didn't align the lense group properly then.
Anyway now that the camera has been calibrated, focus is spot on and results, while not leica or nikkor quality, are great. 🙂 Check out the photos below taken at f2.8.