XA vs. XA2?

[mphilpott]

I've been lurking in Ebay for a while now to try to pick up an XA on the cheap - but they seem to keep running past my $20 - 25 limit. I see the "cheaper" XA2 going past often - is it worth waiting for the right XA opportunity? Or - more specifically - has someone used both who can compare the picture quality?

Thanks!

Matt

 

[JohnM]

The XA has a faster, sharper lens.

The XA2 was a cheaper, down-model edition of the XA - it's not a true rangefinder, either. It's a zone focus camera.

 

[jon_flanders]

I brough an XA2 with me to Italy as a second "pocket" camera for quick shots as we tourists scurried from site to site.

I used mostly 800 film, and for some reason many of the outside shots were underexposed. I am still trying to figure out what happened there.

Inside shots seemed better, but of course long exposures lead to blurring.

Here's and example of an outside XA2 shot of a "Smart Car" that wasn't half bad. 800 Fuji.

But contrast it to the Fed 2 I61 L/D shot of scooters with Kodak Gold 200.

In retrospect I wish I had tried the Canonet G!!! as a pocket camera, even if it is a lot heavier. Not having to focus on the run is nice though, when you are a harried member of a tour group. Andiamo! Andiamo!

 

[matu]

You just can't compare them because they are different cameras, they may look the same but there are a lot of differences.
The Xa has faster lense, different speeds, it's aperture priority, has a rangefinder, AP and manual mode, back light compensation lever at the bottom plate...

I own a XA2 and it's a fine Point and Shoot camera, with a very sharp lense, very handy, It may be fully automatic but has faster speeds than XA 1/750 and long exposures. It's zone focus but when you are making candids or street shooting is great (kind of hyperfocus).
It's very small without the flash unit and really fits in a pocket.
What I liked most was the price. It wasn't in my wish list but when I saw it I bought it, no regrets since then, maybe later I'll get the XA.
There is also the XA4 that is a very popular model with great macro capacity.

Pablo

 

[jon_flanders]

Backlight compensation? That might explain my XA2's outside shooting underxposure problem. No compensation on the XA2.

 

[matu]

Jon you should give your Oly a try, I have done some outside shooting and had no problems with exposure.
This one I is with my Oly XA2 with Agfa APX 400 (grainy)

Pablo

 

[jon_flanders]

Right, but know that I think of it, most of the underexposed shots had some backlight.
It's a neat little camera, I don't mean to say that I won't use it in the future. I am wondering if 800 film is the best for it, though.

 

[newspaperguy]

On paper the XA has a much better lens.. 35mm 2.8, with 6 elements in 5 groups.
The XA-2's 35mm 3.5 lens has 4 elements in 4 groups. I've owned several of each
and saw no practical difference in the results. Still have two XA-2's (& one XA-1)
that are great users, and a whole lot less "fiddiley" (sp?) than the XA.

Rick (old and fumbley) (also sp?) 😎

 

[kiev4a]

Had an XA-2 and sold it. I did take sharp photos but I didn't like the zone focus. I found an XA at a thrift shot for almost nothing. The advance was jammed and I diassembled it to the point of no return before discovering if I had just pulled out the rewind button with some pliers the problem would have been solved. Still would like to have one but not at Ebay prices.

 

[jan normandale]

Daveozzz ran "can you help out a newbie - travel camera" there were a lot of member comments regarding the XA and the XA2 , I even commented. Briefly the XA2 is worth looking at like the XA it has it's strengths and weaknesses. Mostly matters of taste. Pictures from both seem to be making most users happy.

Jan

 

[DougK]

I have the XA and have no regrets about choosing it over the XA2. If you want to see one user's comparison, go to http://homepage.mac.com/mattdenton/photo/cameras/rangefinders.html and check out his comments on both cameras.

 

[kuvvy]

I've been lurking in Ebay for a while now to try to pick up an XA on the cheap - but they seem to keep running past my $20 - 25 limit. I see the "cheaper" XA2 going past often - is it worth waiting for the right XA opportunity? Or - more specifically - has someone used both who can compare the picture quality?

Thanks!

Matt

Matt, I have an XA if you want it. It is nice cosmetically but from the meter readings it seems to be 2-3 stops out. I haven't got around to putting a film through yet. Everything else functions ok. If you can make use of it then I will accept your 25 bucks. It will cost almost that to send it from the UK. BTW there is also tha A11 flash included. Just send me a PM.

Paul

 

[jan normandale]

Interesting website for the XA and XA2 posted by Doug above. I have both the XA and the XA2 ; in the thread from Daveozzz i commented that I got the 2 for my wife because it was a no brainer. Curiously the website Doug has given makes a similar comment on the XA2 about half way down the column. Here is his take on the picture quality. Somewhat the same as mine.

"This model has a 35mm 1:3.5 4-element lens, instead of the outstanding 6-element lens in the XA. Make no mistake, though, it's still a sharp contrasty little Zuiko that will outperform many a point-and-shoot. (SHHH - don't tell anyone, it may even be sharper than the XA lens!)"

Hope you are totally confused... like the rest of us.

Jan

 

[DougK]

I happened to run back across this thread and thought I'd add another comment. I don't know if you were successful in your "quest for Olympus" yet or not, but I was thinking that another camera worth your consideration would be an Olympus Trip 35.

The Trip 35 has a scale-focus 40mm f/2.8 D.Zuiko lens (four elements in three groups, if I remember correctly), very sharp, very contrasty. It's not an easily pocketable camera nor is it great in extremely low-light conditions without a flash, which are possibly its only drawbacks. Note that it is possible, as long as you can make 1/40 speed work with the apertures available (f/2.8 - f/22); just take the camera off "auto" and select the aperture, the shutter interlock is disabled in manual mode. Because of the camera's design there aren't even any light seals to need replacing although you can put felt along the hinge if it makes you feel better. No batteries are required either. You only have two shutter speeds (1/40 and 1/200) available but even with that, I've never had the camera make a bad exposure; a couple of bad pictures maybe but I can't blame the camera for those 🙂. The scale focusing wasn't nearly as limiting as I feared it would be. In fact, once I got used to it, I started wondering why manufacturers got away from this design and went to fixed-focus instead. Very friendly, all you have to do is be able to guess the distance reasonably well up to about fifteen feet or so, after that, the setting becomes obvious 🙂. If you want to check it out, Matt Denton has a blurb on his Trip 35 on the website I posted a link to above.

I got mine in near-mint condition (read: a couple of almost invisible scratches on the base, everything else flawless) on eBay for $24.99 plus shipping, call it $30 altogether. From what I've seen, that's fairly typical. They're easy to find in usable condition because Olympus made a million of them and there is really very little to go wrong with the camera. If I sound very hyped about this camera, it's because I am. I've used it successfully as a street shooter and casual fun camera. Realistically, it could have taken almost all the photos I shot on my Florida vacation and certainly wouldn't tempt any thieves. Put a lens hood on it and it almost looks professional 🙂

OK, I'll shut up now.

 

[2maneekameras]

I remember when the XA first came out. I friend of mine got one right away. I was impressed with its build quality and ergonomics. I already had a rollei 35 which is similar in size, but not rounded off, not made of plastic, doesn''t have a nifty clamshell cover, and doesn't have an automatic mode. I eventually picked up a XA2 at a thrift store for a few bucks. I'm still waiting for a cheap XA to cross my path. I prefer the rollei to the olympus if you can find one and don't mind participating in the process of creating photographic images. I have heard of rollei 35s showing up in thrift stores in with the cheap point and shoot cameras. I actually find that my Ikonta B isn't that much larger when folded. It fits in my coat pocket just fine.

 

[wilt]

I have used Minox 35 GT and GT-E a lot. For several years, it was my main camera. The lens on the GT and GT-E is a great 35/2.8 with good sharpness and contrast. The camera is small and has aperture priority. Scale focus. The shutter lag is negligible and the sound is a _very_ discrete "ka-pleck".

On the negative side: the mechanics is not really that good. Just dropped it and a bit of the plastic (yes, I know, plastic ...) on the top cover came off. Earlier models, the GT, had an inferior shutter that often died. This was supposedly fixed in the GT-E upgrade.

There are some lesser variants out there (and also one with program mode auto), but Gt and GT-E is the ones I'm familiar with. I am very pleased. I find the lens better than the Oly XA, which I also own (which on the other hand has a rangefinder).

Nowadays you can find them quite cheap, thanks to digital I suppose.

 

[jmilkins]

I've got a couple of XA's and an XA4.

For ease of use - The XA4 - a great 28mm F3.5 lens with close focus capability of 0.3m!!

For Aperture priority control and lower light- the XA 35/2.8

check this useful site http://www.diaxa.com/xa/xastart.htm

I reckon they're worth the $

 

[Trius]

You probably won't find a nice XA on ePay for your limit unless you get extremely lucky. Better to try thrift shops and or maybe pawn shops. I have a couple of XAs and really like the camera. I have some TriX shots w/ the XA that people find hard to believe were made with a "pocket" camera. And it makes great chromes. IMO, it's worth the money. I've never tried a Minox but constantly hear the Minox lens is somewhat better. I'd like to try one but would be concerned about build quality. You don't have to worry about that with the XA. Were I to buy another XA-series camera, it would be an XA-4, for sure.

Trius

 

[kzim56]

I just picked up an XA2 at a camera show yesterday. Shot a roll of Neopan 400 and was very impressed. So sharp. I think I'll even like the zone focusing once I'm used to it. A shot from the first roll is attached.

(oh no, not another picture of his cat)

 

[Solinar]

I used an XA as a travel camera for 14 years, before being at the right place at the right time to score a Rollei 35S on the cheap. The XA only lacks two needed improvements. It really could benefit from an exposure lock button and it's a shame that it doesn't accept filters.

I had a Yashical Electro 35 GT before acquiring the XA. So, I was used to having to work around the AE mode. To control the exposure on the XA, one needs to load ISO 400 film or lower and then adjust the diminutive film speed lever as required. Yes, the backlight lever works and you'll not have to remember to reset the filmspeed lever.

I actually like the XA's dedicated A-16 flash. It works wonders on a photo when used as a fill-flash. Like the exposure work around, it takes some thought, but it is well worth the effort.

Let me finish by saying, don't poo-poo the lesser equipped XA-2. I bought one for the price of disposable, which is $5. It isn't half bad, as it will definitely yield acceptable 8x10 prints.