dave lackey
Veteran
Now, that I have a break in-between projects, I think it is time to play with the XA2. I keep hearing about how sharp the XA is. And how good the XA2 is.
Prove it.
Show the same image with an XA and then with the XA2, if possible. I have never seen this done by anyone and my experience with the XA2 so far does not support what I keep reading about on this forum. Is it the film I am using? Or is it the camera? Or...is it hype?
As usual, your input is greatly appreciated in advance.
Prove it.
Show the same image with an XA and then with the XA2, if possible. I have never seen this done by anyone and my experience with the XA2 so far does not support what I keep reading about on this forum. Is it the film I am using? Or is it the camera? Or...is it hype?
As usual, your input is greatly appreciated in advance.
Last edited:
gavinlg
Veteran
The xa is way better than the xa2.... My experience anyway.
dave lackey
Veteran
Yeah, I keep hearing that but I have never seen any comparisons.
What I have seen is Raid's post with his Minox. Now that is a sharp camera!
David Hughes
David Hughes
Will this do as a test shot;
There's a slight problem with test shots.
I can easily take a picture with either but for a test shot I need to know the shutter speed and aperture to use and duplicate it. I can tell that with the XA and the range too. But - and it's a great big "but" - I've no way of knowing with the XA2. I could get round it by taking a dozen shots with the XA2 with the same thing moving in each shot and then one with the XA and compare the blur or DoF but that would be a lousy test shot.
Regards, David
There's a slight problem with test shots.
I can easily take a picture with either but for a test shot I need to know the shutter speed and aperture to use and duplicate it. I can tell that with the XA and the range too. But - and it's a great big "but" - I've no way of knowing with the XA2. I could get round it by taking a dozen shots with the XA2 with the same thing moving in each shot and then one with the XA and compare the blur or DoF but that would be a lousy test shot.
Regards, David
Last edited:
dave lackey
Veteran
Will this do as a test shot;
There's a slight problem with test shots.
I can easily take a picture with either but for a test shot I need to know the shutter speed and aperture to use and duplicate. I can tell that with the XA and the range too. But - and it's a great big "but" - I've no way of knowing with the XA2. I could get round it by taking a dozen shots with the XA2 with the same thing moving in each shot and then one with the XA and compare the blur or DoF but that would be a lousy test shot.
Regards, David
Actually that is quite good! What film is that?
Of course, you could just shoot the XA2 and it will give you it's best shot, I suppose and that is what I am looking at...which one under normal shooting will give a better image first time every time? My bet is on the XA based on this image!
newspaperguy
Well-known
Please try not to overcomplicate things for us old folk. ;o)
IME the XA2 is perfectly capable of snapshot quality plus,
but enlargements from my XAs were noticeably sharper O/A.
IME the XA2 is perfectly capable of snapshot quality plus,
but enlargements from my XAs were noticeably sharper O/A.
raid
Dad Photographer
Both cameras a P&S cameras at a low cost and with good performance. I chose the XA over my XA2 for the faster lens and for the RF focusing.
oftheherd
Veteran
I have no way of knowing since I cannot personally compare them. The XA2 I have was purchased as a parts camera, thinking I could use the clam shell for an XA. It doesn't work. (BTW, if you decide to replace the clamshell on an XA, and have never done it, PM me first)
But I would think that while any particular photo from an XA2 might be equal, over the long run, most would not be as sharp since it uses zone focusing. The XA of course, has an RF. Assuming it is accurate, is used, and other camera techniques are good, over the long haul, it should give more good photos.
Just my opinion of course.
But I would think that while any particular photo from an XA2 might be equal, over the long run, most would not be as sharp since it uses zone focusing. The XA of course, has an RF. Assuming it is accurate, is used, and other camera techniques are good, over the long haul, it should give more good photos.
Just my opinion of course.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Indeed, using the same aperture/shutter speed combinations might yield a more valid comparison.
Does anyone have a chart of the XA2's autoexposure program values? It's not in the manual.
Chris
Does anyone have a chart of the XA2's autoexposure program values? It's not in the manual.
Chris
David Hughes
David Hughes
Actually that is quite good! What film is that?
Of course, you could just shoot the XA2 and it will give you it's best shot, I suppose and that is what I am looking at...which one under normal shooting will give a better image first time every time? My bet is on the XA based on this image!
Hi,
Until five minutes ago I thought I could lay my hands on any negative from the late 1950's to last week but have been proved wrong. However, the catalogue and a date suggest it would have been Kodak Gold at 200 ASA or VR 200 Plus. There was a big clear-out at a supermarket in France and I bought a lot of it for a song when visiting my sister in law.
It was taken as a test shot, btw, but being an XA2 shot I've no idea of the exposure.
Regards, David
Harlee
Well-known
I use both the XA, XA2 and XA3. Overall, I think the rangefinding abilities of the XA does a bit better job then the XA2. However, my XA3 also appears to be a bit sharper than my XA2. Don't know why that should be, except that perhaps the XA3, being in better condition than my XA2, actually it's in mint condition, the shutter speed may be more accurate in changing light conditions. I've chosen to take the XA with me to Ukraine next week.
btgc
Veteran
XA2 is unsharp....when it chooses large apertures and one focuses it wrong way, especially when working at close distances. Sure, RF focusing is big help getting sharper pictures, but I'm not going to believe lenses (xA vs XA2) alone are SO different.
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
xa
xa2
the xa2 lens seems a wee little sharper to me and I think it has less distortion. the xa is faster and more precise to handle / more control.
PS: they are both good enough to take good pictures.
xa2
the xa2 lens seems a wee little sharper to me and I think it has less distortion. the xa is faster and more precise to handle / more control.
PS: they are both good enough to take good pictures.
Last edited:
dave lackey
Veteran
Thanks, Simon...these look good! Maybe the problem here is with my local lab and the crummy scans, or the photographer? Yikes.
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
Their extreme light weight makes it difficult to hold any XA model steady.
This may account for a majority of unsharp results some users experience.
Chris
This may account for a majority of unsharp results some users experience.
Chris
BradM
Established
It might, but the light shutter button and the short lens to film distance should help counter that a little bit. But yes, it's not like lifting a big metal rangefinder around!