XA vs Rollei

P

puderse

Established
Local time
6:06 AM
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
152
I have 3 XAs that I use (XA, XA2, XA4 macro) and all work great. The XA4 is my favorite, both WA and close.

Looking hard at a 35S and wish to hear, from someone who has used both, how the image from the Sonnar compares to that from the XA or XA4. I know the 35S is viewfinder only.

Does the Rollei bring a premium simply from the name?
 
Moderators can move this thread to a more suitable sub-forum.

Olympus XA is a capable camera (I've had a couple of them) but in my opinion XA's lens is not nearly as good as the Rollei 35 Sonnar or Tessar.
 
I have XA4 (still my favorite) and I had a Rollei 35S.
I'd pick the XA4 every time because I find the Rollei to be "fiddly."

If you want Sonnar in a compact packaging, I'd suggest getting this one:
3547413113_54c2d08f92.jpg


It's not as unique as the 35S, but it has a rangefinder, and it's a joy to use.
 
puderse said:
I have 3 XAs that I use (XA, XA2, XA4 macro) and all work great. The XA4 is my favorite, both WA and close.

Looking hard at a 35S and wish to hear, from someone who has used both, how the image from the Sonnar compares to that from the XA or XA4. I know the 35S is viewfinder only.

Does the Rollei bring a premium simply from the name?
Click to expand...


In my experience and in theory, the Rollei is definitely sharper. The XA has a more refined focusing system though (a rangefinder, plus greater DOF) so you may see better results from it. The XA's lens is still very good, and combined with it's AE and other features, the camera is hard to beat.
 
Rollei is better

Rollei is better

I had both.
XA allows you to work faster.
I prefer the rollei 35S, lens are very good, much better than the XA imho.
Rollei is a full manual camera, and built with higher quality. There is no range finder, you have to scale focus.
Best regards,
Luis
 
I agree with the opinions offered here. While the guess focus of the Rollei is crude compared to the really clever XA design, the optical and mechanical quality of the Rollei is better in my opinion. One thing I recall about the XA; I used to shoot slides with one years ago, and found a great deal of edge fall-off in the lens. It probably would not be significant with negative film, but I found it quite annoying.

Cheers,
Dez
 
I have both an XA and 35S and prefer the Rollei except for the scale focusing. But once you get the focus right the Rollei is amazingly sharp. XA feels great in your hands with the clamshell, Rollei feels solid smooth and well built, so to me they are two great cameras to have and use as compliments to eachother. Use the XA for a week, switch to the Rollei, then back to the XA, best of both worlds
 
Thread moved.

I've had both Oly XA's and Rollei 35's. My experience was that the XA's became unreliable with age. I had XA's with rangefinder, shutter, and exposure problems. They are plastic (polycarbonate) and electronic. Rolleis are metal and mechanical. I have experienced much better reliability from my Rollei 35's.

The only cameras that I found less reliable than the XA's were the Minox 35's.
(In SLR's, I've avoided Rollei and Praktica due to reliability issues. Unfortunately I did not manage to avoid the Miranda Sensorex.)
 
It depends on your shooting style. The XA is good for quick grab shots as there is little to do but compose focus and shoot. The Rollei forces you to slow down in order to meter or guesstimate exposure when the lighting is less than bright indoors and estimate or measure distance with an auxillary rangefinder if the subject is under 10 feet away. It's old school but you are rewarded with an image on par with classic Leica sharpness while the Oympus' images suffers in comparison. As mentioned by others, it's all metal construction and full manual operation ensures relability for a lifetime. A new style Wein cell battery that lasts a year work fine in place of the discontinued mercury batteries although the meter sensitivity of the Olympus is far better than the Rollei. If you want to shoot closer than 3 feet, forget the Rollei and use the XA4 Macro.
 
I have owned Rollei 35, Olympus XA, XA2 and XA3 and Minox 35 cameras.

While the XA is merely fiddly the Rollei 35 is an ergonomic nightmare.
Its crowded, non-standard controls will soon tie your fingers in knots.
It is also far too heavy to live comfortably in your chest pocket.

I always carry a pocket 35mm camera. The XA2/XA3 and Minox 35ML are among my favorites.
I have found that reliability of these models can be dramatically increased
by using a thin case to protect them from dust and pocket lint infiltration.

Chris
 
I would take a Rollei with a Tessar before a Rollei with a Sonnar. That half stop advantage is negligible, and with this camera I want a sharp photo above all else.

The XA has the advantage of having autoexposure, a sliding protective lens cover, a rangefinder and more traditional ergonomics.

The Rollei has the advantage of not being all manual, no crappy foam seals, no battery dependency and excellent Zeiss lens designs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom