XA Lens Quality?

[John Shriver]

The setup of the lens is tricky, if you take the lens apart, you need a special Olympus spacing jig to put it back together. One internal element/group moves to focus -- it's not a unit-focusing lens. The rear element/group is (I think) the one that needs to be adjusted using the shim, to get optimal sharpness.

So it's quite possible to get a mucked-up XA.

The vignetting at wide apertures is all too real, got really noticeable with Kodachrome 64, not that bad with print film.

 

[oktyone]

I'm having an issue with my XA where the sharpness drops considerably on the left side of the pictures (or top when taken vertically), anyone have a clue of what might be happening?, I've had it for more than a year and never had such issues, i thought it might have been a scanning issue (i ordered a CD with scans at a drugstore lab), but it happened to a newer batch of rolls i left developing as well, I've tried looking at the negatives with a magnifying glass, but I can't tell if the sharpness drops at the negatives too, i think they do but I'm not sure.

Anyone have a clue what might be causing this? the only uncommon thing i noticed is that the outermost black metal "mask" or frame that sits just where the picture is projected on to the film through the lens had become completely loose, I've since reglued it in place with a bit of crazy glue, and shot another roll but haven't developed it, so I'm not sure if the problem is solved. I checked the pressure plate and it.

 

[oktyone]

Yeah i guess it's time for a new XA, i grew pretty attached to this one, i'll hate seeing it shelved until i get a new one, which is pretty damn hard around these latitudes. I took some more pictures and they all came with that dreaded and awful blurryness at the edge, it's so frustrating... One thing i did notice is that the lens seems to have gotten a very early stage of fungus at some of the inner lenses, it's just barely noticeable like a small dust spec with a microscopic thread that flows from it, considering its size i doubt it's the cause for the loss of sharpness, but right now it's the only thing that at least makes some sort of sense.

 

[tedwhite]

No free lunch in this world. In one way or another, every camera is a compromise in some way. XA is no different. You get one of the finest pocketable cameras ever made by a great designer and with a sharp enough lens for its size and intent. But now they're in their dotage and need a CLA if they haven't got one. Actually, I liked mine better than my Yashica T4 because it was virtually silent; the Yashica wasn't, but Yashica's GSN was the quietest camera I ever ran across.

Hereare two shots from my last XA (bought another XA last night after looking at these pics and realizing what a great street camera it is):

 

[JeffGreene]

Ted:

I love my XA. Had it since the late 70's. Here are two landscapes that really speak to the camera's capability. And definitely not the photographer's.

 

[viridari]

Very much looking forward to my first XA arriving in the post this week.

 

[tedwhite]

Jeff Greene: I do like those landscapes and they make me wonder why I never tried to do some with it. Usually all I do are street shots.

 

[OMboy]

Fascinating thread - I don't have an XA but I am considering one now...!

Is the XA the only rangefinder in the series...?

 

[viridari]

Is the XA the only rangefinder in the series...?

The original XA has a coupled RF (though in a related thread you'll find many complain that the RF patch is nearly transparent)

Subsequent models rely on zone focusing.

 

[lxmike]

I really love my Olympus XA, I,ve owned a couple of examples, both have been very sharp, nice quiet shutters but to be honest where I feel they come into their own is night time. I really like putting it on a small tripod, self timer and let the camera do the rest, have got some great night time shots and it does not draw unwanted attention from not so nice people who sometimes hang arround at night What I dont like is the falre in the viewfinder which can make meter reading a bit difficult but generally for me f4/5.6 and the zuiko gets very sharp, I maily shoot at f5.6 anyway

 

[Juan Valdenebro]

Oh, I never thought of using my XA on a tripod! About sharpness, it's fine by f/8, but wide open I don't like it that much...

Cheers,

Juan

 

[David Hughes]

Fascinating thread - I don't have an XA but I am considering one now...!

Is the XA the only rangefinder in the series...?

The plain XA is the RF and was followed by the simpler XA2 which is zone focussing and has a programmed shutter. So you just P&S with it. The XA is aperture priority. The XA2 was slightly improved and became the XA3 with a +1½ EV adjustment for backlit shots (like the XA has) and takes DX films.

Zone focussing is very easy to use in the XA3 and XA2 but the XA's RF is better (just). The XA 2 and 3 are f/3·5 not f/2.8 like the XA.

All of them benefit from a complete service but need a specialist to do it.

There's also the XA1 which is very basic, no batteries required, only 100 or 400 ASA film accepted, etc, etc. And there's the XA4 which I've neither seen nor used.

The flash comes in several versions; the A11 is commonest and the A16 is more powerful. Both are usually left at home.

Although I love the XA it does slow you down thinking about the aperture, speeds etc: it's aperture priority but the speeds are indicated by a needle in the VF. The zone focusing of the XA 2 and 3 is a delight to use and it is a programmed shutter. So a pure P&S. Also the XA2 and 3 are dirt cheap...

Dropping an XA can be very expensive, I've owned one from new and know the hard way, which lead me to the XA2 and 3 but I've an XA in the heap as I missed the thing.

 

[DNG]

My guess is that the subject need to be standing 6 to 12 feet from the camera to be in acceptable focus for a snap shot sized print when the lens is set to the highlighted 8 foot mark.

3 meters is 10 feet - so your mileage may very.

Raid gets the 64,000 dollar prize - camera shake can be a bugger with the XA - especially when it wanders into the slow shutter speed zone.

Yes, the DOF charts in the Manual shows
5.24' to 17.3' DOF when set at the focus scale to 8 and f/5.6. So for street use, this is pretty good distance span.
If you want more, like 3.91' to INF DOF, Use the 8 foot mark and f/16

Hope this is helpful

 

[tedwhite]

I am continually impressed by the quality of the photos that you, raytoei, and others are posting. It's amazing what can be gotten from that tiny camera that's probably going on 30-40 years of age.

 

[Bingley]

Here's a recent one at f.4, taken w/ Fuji Pro800Z:

 

[abumac]

I've got mine yesterday. And I guess I'll like it. Here some pics from my first color-roll. This weekend I will put some b/w in it.

 

[MIkhail]

On mine the lens is a lot sharper than the focusing capacity of the dim rangefinder patch )

KenD

Take a look here:
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-165.html

 

[mackigator]

@raytoei My XA's don't show that type of "smearing" lens flare wide open. The lens has weaknesses, including at f2.8, I'm just pointing out that you might check for oil or a grease smear on either side of your lens, etc, or test another copy of the XA.

 

[lxmike]

Ireally like the XA, but the viewfinder is really poor, loads of flare, if the light is anywhere near the viewfinder its difficult to read the meter readout. However, stick it on a tripod and it is great for night shots

 

[TheHub]

... if the light is anywhere near the viewfinder its difficult to read the meter readout. ...

In most of the XAs I've encountered, the VF meters have been wrong or dead. They're about 30 years old!

I use my XA just as a pocket camera on the way to work and back, or when I don't want to carry around anything bigger. My only complaint is the advance wheel, which makes too much noise for my liking (I stick it in my pocket when advancing to muffle it.) The lens has always been sharp enough