Bingley
Veteran
Bingley
Veteran
btgc
Veteran
48/2 of Konica III looks only average in that chart. Well, I do not trust everything I see on Net.
nukecoke
⚛Yashica
It's actually from a book as I stated in the chart. Some japanese guy scanned some pages and put it on his blog. I simply translated the page.
jmilkins
Digited User
Thanks for posting and translating. Very interesting charts,even if some people have different personal experiences. I fam quite happy to peruse the stats and the lens typology.
DutchBoy17
Newbie
I have a thing for very-compact cams, though the plastic ones do seem rather fragile (I've been through a series of Minox 35 cams that were good for 0 - 3 rolls of film each; I did really enjoy their output when/while they worked).
In any case, I got an XA2 and an XA around the same time. The seals on the XA were gum, and it's VF meter seems off, so it sat for a long time while I ran a few rolls through the XA2 (I really like that camera!). I finally replaced the XA seals and ran a roll of Fuji through it and am pleased with the image quality.
I usually default to f/8 for 35mm, sometimes f/11 for scale-focus, unless subject or light lends itself to a different aperture, so I'm guessing this exposure was at f/8.
Annapolis Marina, Olympus XA camera (35/2.8), Fuji Pro-H ISO 400 film, developed by thedarkroom, #thedarkroomlab_uniqueperspective by Henk Sijgers, on Flickr
In any case, I got an XA2 and an XA around the same time. The seals on the XA were gum, and it's VF meter seems off, so it sat for a long time while I ran a few rolls through the XA2 (I really like that camera!). I finally replaced the XA seals and ran a roll of Fuji through it and am pleased with the image quality.
I usually default to f/8 for 35mm, sometimes f/11 for scale-focus, unless subject or light lends itself to a different aperture, so I'm guessing this exposure was at f/8.
Annapolis Marina, Olympus XA camera (35/2.8), Fuji Pro-H ISO 400 film, developed by thedarkroom, #thedarkroomlab_uniqueperspective by Henk Sijgers, on Flickr
mauro scacco
Established
Rome, no title4, oly xa by Mauro Scacco, su Flickr
Rome, no title3, oly xa by Mauro Scacco, su Flickr
Rome, no title 2, oly xa by Mauro Scacco, su Flickrrandy stewart
Established
XA sharpness
XA sharpness
the virtue of the XA is near perfect balance of features and self-contained portability in a very small package. It is not camera to buy for sharp, high contrast image which will withstand significant enlargement. The lens is unique, an extreme retrofocus design required to fit a 35mm lens into the body with no requirement for its extension from the film plane to operate. The rear element of the lens almost sits on the film. The lens is not used in the following XA models nor in any other camera. The XA was part of a published lens test many years ago shooting a set of resolution charts followed by 40x enlargement. The lenses on Canon QL17 GIIIS and Oly 35RD were surprisingly sharp, of equal performance. A Konica C35 did a respectable job if inferior. From the XA images, wide open and closed down, you could not even tell that the subject was a test chart - just terrible by comparison. That doesn't diminish the XA, which was intended as a casual snapshot camera making enlargements to maybe 8x10. With most folks today scanning 35mm to post on a computer screen, those limitations are not seriously tested. Unhappily, the fanboys have over the years created a backstory and present reputation which the XA cannot live up to.
XA sharpness
the virtue of the XA is near perfect balance of features and self-contained portability in a very small package. It is not camera to buy for sharp, high contrast image which will withstand significant enlargement. The lens is unique, an extreme retrofocus design required to fit a 35mm lens into the body with no requirement for its extension from the film plane to operate. The rear element of the lens almost sits on the film. The lens is not used in the following XA models nor in any other camera. The XA was part of a published lens test many years ago shooting a set of resolution charts followed by 40x enlargement. The lenses on Canon QL17 GIIIS and Oly 35RD were surprisingly sharp, of equal performance. A Konica C35 did a respectable job if inferior. From the XA images, wide open and closed down, you could not even tell that the subject was a test chart - just terrible by comparison. That doesn't diminish the XA, which was intended as a casual snapshot camera making enlargements to maybe 8x10. With most folks today scanning 35mm to post on a computer screen, those limitations are not seriously tested. Unhappily, the fanboys have over the years created a backstory and present reputation which the XA cannot live up to.
retinax
Well-known
Thanks for the perspective, Randy! Would you remember where this was published?
I'm still wondering if I should try one, the size appeals for a backup and carry everywhere camera... But as you say, from the web sites scans there's no way to see how the lens performs. Btw, the lens is not a retrofocus but a tele, despite being wide angle - it's shorter then its fl.
I'm still wondering if I should try one, the size appeals for a backup and carry everywhere camera... But as you say, from the web sites scans there's no way to see how the lens performs. Btw, the lens is not a retrofocus but a tele, despite being wide angle - it's shorter then its fl.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Surely, after reading all these post you can decide one way or the other?
(Edit) There is a review from Modern Photography, November 1979 here:- http://www.diaxa.com/xa.htm
You have to scroll down a little to find it.
I think you should get one and find out for yourself; no one else's opinion is as good as that acid test. FWIW, I have more or less had one or two since they were new.
Regards, David
randy stewart
Established
XA comparison
XA comparison
Thanks for the perspective, Randy! Would you remember where this was published? I'm still wondering if I should try one, the size appeals for a backup and carry everywhere camera... But as you say, from the web sites scans there's no way to see how the lens performs.
An article entitled "Lean and Mean" comparing performance of Canon QL17 GIII, Olympus RD, some little Konica rf, a Rokkor lens on its current Minolta slr, and the Oly XA. Looking at the article again, the comparison was made at 30x, each lens both wide open and at 5.6. Wide open, the XA was a grey, shadowy mush; at 5.6 it was quite decent subjectively. Objectively, the XA lens at 5.6 was not quite at sharp or contrasty as the Canon Ql17 or Oly RD wide open at 1.7, but then those two lenses are just stunning. Published in Camera Shopper, Vol 103, March 2000.
XA comparison
Thanks for the perspective, Randy! Would you remember where this was published? I'm still wondering if I should try one, the size appeals for a backup and carry everywhere camera... But as you say, from the web sites scans there's no way to see how the lens performs.
An article entitled "Lean and Mean" comparing performance of Canon QL17 GIII, Olympus RD, some little Konica rf, a Rokkor lens on its current Minolta slr, and the Oly XA. Looking at the article again, the comparison was made at 30x, each lens both wide open and at 5.6. Wide open, the XA was a grey, shadowy mush; at 5.6 it was quite decent subjectively. Objectively, the XA lens at 5.6 was not quite at sharp or contrasty as the Canon Ql17 or Oly RD wide open at 1.7, but then those two lenses are just stunning. Published in Camera Shopper, Vol 103, March 2000.
DwF
Well-known
I don't think of the XA as being about sharp corner to corner per se, but it certainly is a capable performer. It renders which together with a wonderful camera design and form factor, it is one of the few film cameras I've held on to.
David
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
Never used the XA but a constant problem i had with its sibling, the XA2, is getting blurry pictures due to camera shake. It was light and you can easily shake your hand during exposure. Maybe that applies to the XA too.
Brian Atherton
Well-known
Had an XA from day one, when it was released in the UK in 1979 - still have it though the electronic shutter button is erratic.
It went everywhere with me, especially solo winter rock climbing in Snowdonia, Wales. It has been dropped (more than once), frozen to well below zero, soaked in a backpack, covered in dust during the summer and generally taken for granted; it never let me down.
Loaded with Tri-X, it was my carry-all camera. Some of my favourite outdoor images were taken with it, stuff I could never have got otherwise, by using the self-timer. The 1.5 back-light compensation worked well, too. It was a joy to use.
I have 20x16 inch enlargements from it. Sure, the lens isn’t as sharp as say, a SLR lens, but the XA images stand up by being atmospheric in a way I haven’t found with any other camera. Sharpness isn’t the singular criteria to judge a lens.
By any measure (especially given its age and release date), the XA is a truly remarkable camera, lens included.
It went everywhere with me, especially solo winter rock climbing in Snowdonia, Wales. It has been dropped (more than once), frozen to well below zero, soaked in a backpack, covered in dust during the summer and generally taken for granted; it never let me down.
Loaded with Tri-X, it was my carry-all camera. Some of my favourite outdoor images were taken with it, stuff I could never have got otherwise, by using the self-timer. The 1.5 back-light compensation worked well, too. It was a joy to use.
I have 20x16 inch enlargements from it. Sure, the lens isn’t as sharp as say, a SLR lens, but the XA images stand up by being atmospheric in a way I haven’t found with any other camera. Sharpness isn’t the singular criteria to judge a lens.
By any measure (especially given its age and release date), the XA is a truly remarkable camera, lens included.
wwfloyd
Well-known
The XA has a much nicer shutter release action than the XA2/3/4/1. They look the same, and all have a light touch (well, never tried the lowly "XA1"), but, the XA works more reliably. The others may sometimes fail to react, as if you didn't put pressure in quite the right place.
The XA2/3/4 shutter button sits a little below the surface of the top plate, and, the rim around the button subtly feels like it's in your way.
In disassembly, one notes the buttons are physically different... the spring pressure in the XA can be adjusted. The others have a unitized switch mechanism.
cjm
Well-known
As others have said, the XA is not the sharpest, but has a very pleasing signature (to my eye).
Kodak Porta 400:
Kodak Porta 400:
Hari
Well-known
I had an XA and a Stylist Epic 2.8.
The XA was ok but stylist died with
shutter/electronic problems. Plus
an OM-1 where some parts fell off
or broke, loose focusing collars,etc
I tried and switched to Nikon forever
(just the old stuff)
The XA was ok but stylist died with
shutter/electronic problems. Plus
an OM-1 where some parts fell off
or broke, loose focusing collars,etc
I tried and switched to Nikon forever
(just the old stuff)
DwF
Well-known
Funny for me to to see this as I was just revisiting my 2 XA cameras as my son wanted to try a film camera. I first considered loaning my Rollei 35s but after playing with it, thought the XA an easier learning curve, form loading to shooting.
So, thinking about the XA a bit the past couple of days, here's my take fwiw:
One can talk about the lens or compactness or this or that, but the XA is a wonderful (like no other) sum of it's parts and design. Lens is not as sharp as the Rollei or Contax T but it's no slouch either. It does have it's own signature.
If you are attracted to the XA, by all means try one, it is one of the coolest cameras out there of it's kind.
David
PS CJM your pic on Portra 400 there shows just the color and look my son is after.....but I sent him out the door to start with a roll of Superia 800. And yes, he had to load it himself!
So, thinking about the XA a bit the past couple of days, here's my take fwiw:
One can talk about the lens or compactness or this or that, but the XA is a wonderful (like no other) sum of it's parts and design. Lens is not as sharp as the Rollei or Contax T but it's no slouch either. It does have it's own signature.
If you are attracted to the XA, by all means try one, it is one of the coolest cameras out there of it's kind.
David
PS CJM your pic on Portra 400 there shows just the color and look my son is after.....but I sent him out the door to start with a roll of Superia 800. And yes, he had to load it himself!
David Hughes
David Hughes
There's enough pictures in this to show what they can do and they are perfect for sticking in your pocket and taking everywhere. If you want to do billboards or posters then look elsewhere or carry a tripod. FWIW I think almost any camera from the mid 80's is OK if you never print over 12 x 8 and know your technique...
They (film cameras) are all getting old by now, luckily the XA range can be serviced by specialists and are properly made without plastic gears etc. The XA first appeared about 40 to 45 years ago. That alone is a good reason to get them checked and so on by a specialist repairer.
Regards, David
They (film cameras) are all getting old by now, luckily the XA range can be serviced by specialists and are properly made without plastic gears etc. The XA first appeared about 40 to 45 years ago. That alone is a good reason to get them checked and so on by a specialist repairer.
Regards, David
jrose125
Established
I love the glass, but couldn't get past the dim RF patch and the janky build quality. I would like to try one of the other zone focus models, however.