Olympus XA astonishing.... comparable to a leica lens?

[mauroscacco]

Great little Olympus XA, I think its lens is worthy of being compared to a 35

leica lens...

 

It stays in a pocket, it's a rangefinder camera, it's not expansive...

 

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5641665

 

Thx Mauro Scacco

[kevin_jones8]

The XA is a very fine camera - I've used them for years, and taken many of my favourite pictures with them. They are so small that sometimes any other camera would give you no picture at all, because you would have to leave them at home. Two things to be careful of: first, vignetting in the corners of the frame. Second, the camera is so light that you will want the shutter speed a stop or more slower than when trying to hand-hold something more substantial.<div></div>

[andyaitken]

Sure, it's a great little camera, I have one too. BUT. The rangefinder is pretty poor, and while the lens is certainly very good, it's a whole order of magnitude behind a Leica 35mm lens. For it's age and size it IS quite amazing but a Leica it is not. A Leica CL and 40mm Summicron while a good bit bigger but eats XA's for breakfast. Raw.

[david_chang_sang]

I've owned and used the XA.. nice handy RF cam. Loved it for its pocketablilty (although there is no such word :) ).

 

The shutter is a hair trigger :), at least on mine it was.

 

I like vignetting personally; so many people are caught up in "sharp!! corner to corner!!" that a lot of images tend to lose that certain "je ne sais quoi" that sometimes gets added with a bit of vignetting.

 

Like the stylus epic P&S camera, the XA, for its size; is a gem. Sure the leica glass is awesome but for the weight and size of the XA it does a pretty good job.

[vivek iyer]

They die unexpectedly (considering their age, it has to be expected).

 

The lens quality does not overwhelm me.

[terry_rory]

The old Olympus Trip 35 (with 40mm f/2,8 lens) is quite respectable even though it has 'guess-timate' focussing.

[john_shriver]

Part of the trick is that it is an "internal focusing" lens.

 

There are very precise jigs required to calibrate the lens if you take things apart. Thus, it's easy for inept repairs to mess up the optical quality of the lens.

 

Not the camera for Kodachrome 64, the film is contrasty and slow, you'll want to shoot at wide apertures, and the vignetting will catch you off. Just fine for print film.

[lee_shively]

I have two XA's. The first bought when the camera was new to the market. Bought it grey market from one of the NYC dealers--the instruction book was in German. The second, I bought for $25 at a garage sale several years ago. Both cameras still work well although the garage sale model tends to overexpose. The lenses are very good but the rangefinder is dim and the patch is tiny. I have large hands and I occasionally find myself trying to press the shutter release in the wrong place. The 35/2.8 lens is certainly nice but the overall performance is not in the same class as a Leica or even Voigtlander.

[Brad_]

I have one. It's an OK camera for it's size. Not particularly great or standout on image quality,

if that's important to you...

[Andrew in Austin]

My XA is relegated to use with Tri-X on social occasions that I don't want to use any fancy gear. Think Warhol and his Minox.

 

Lens wise, the tiny 35mm Zuiko is good when closed down a bit, but in truth the lens on the older 35RC is a better performer at all apertures.

[rgeorge911]

Yeah, I've been in/out of love with the XA series myself. I must say the image you've posted really is great. Nice job!

 

I bought and sold an XA a couple of years ago. I now have another XA and XA2. I'm selling the XA2 (it's just an instamatic to me). I like the XA, but don't love it for all of the reasons above. Definitely an interesting exercise in combinations of features, primarily small size. However, I can't really focus with that rangefinder patch being so dim, and also don't like having only AE.

 

Regards,

Reed

[yeti]

I have one too, it is new and unused, but I have experience from another XA that I was using

many years ago.<br>

Great camera, unique super small design, the original one and only "capsule camera".<br>

Still, no comparison with Leica IQ Im afraid.<br>

Oh, by the way, the real King of the film compacts is The original Contax T !!!

[dave_powell2]

As Vivek said, they may die unexpectedly. After a year of use, my yard-sale XA (which I loved) just quit working. When I (verrrrry carefully) removed the front panel, I saw that two of its extremely tiny soldering joints came loose. I don't have any tools that are fine enought to attempt a resolder, so it's dead for now!)

 

I remember reading a long time ago that all Olympus cameras and lenses appear to take sharper images because they are somewhat higher in contrast. Don't know if this is true, but I did also see the corner vignetting at the widest angles, when my XA was alive.

 

Sincerely,

 

Dave

 

P.S. I love having the "Contribute an answer" box at the bottom of the thread. Good change!

[terry_rory]

I second Tri Elmar on his opinion of the Contax. My preference was for the T2. Super 38mm f/2.8 Sonnar lens.....

 

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/64/164947995_302f00074c_o.jpg" width="511" height="779" alt="Shire horse" /></a>

[HarryBaker]

My XA was given to me free by a PNet member (who posted it from Australia!) It's great fun and feels comfortable in your pocket I can't really see the RF so focus by guess. Good to see Trevor back. Where has he been? The last time I heard he was off to Robert Whites to put down a deposit for his M8.<div></div>

[terry_rory]

LOL Harry.

 

No M8 this time. Sorry. All my camera budget this year is going on a new iMac 20" and photoshop CS3 when it is launched.

 

Back to the topic (sort of) I have a weakness for quality P&S cameras and have had the pleasure of using Contax T2s and a Ricoh GR1 and even a Leica CM as you may remember.

 

My current P&S is a Ricoh GR Digital with the 21mm adaptor and an IR filter.

 

My/our first camera was an Olympus Trip 35 that I bought some 26 years ago, long before photography became an interest. (Remember the one that David Bailey used to advertise on UK television back in the 1970s) I still have it. I never used an XA but have seen good results with it.

[elmarfudd]

The XA is astonishing, being a rangefinder camera that will fit in your pants pocket and produce a fairly good quality image. With that said, I've never ever seen any Leica 35mm lens vignette like the XA does wide open. Cost/benefit though, you can't really beat an XA.

[terry_rory]

OK I have managed to find an Olympus Trip 35 photo (knew I had a few) taken a couple of years ago.....

 

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/34/73457136_59cc32a3d2_o.jpg" width="700" height="447" alt="Light lunch" /></a>

[rosemaryh]

I like my XA too. I bought another one after a family member misplaced mine. I do know some people who simply can't see through the viewfinder but I greatly prefer it to trying to guess the focus.

[mauroscacco]

This is an other picture taken in the small church with XA<div></div>

[mauroscacco]

An other, full of details, with difficult light conditions<div></div>

[mauroscacco]

And again in the church, full wide open, Oly XA<div></div>

[vincenzo_maielli]

Hi Mauro. I don't know if the Zuiko 35 mm f/ 2,8 of the Olympus XA is really comparable to 35 mm Leica M lenses. I know, yet, that the Zuiko 35 mm f/ 2,8 of the Olympus XA is a very fine performer and is a true milestone in the optical engineering, a true masterpiece of Mr. Maitani.

Ciao.

[g-man1]

I found the shutter release too sensitive, the viewfinder dim, the film advance noisy, and the lens soft with too much vignetting. Liked the size, though.

[j_sevigny]

A fine camera with a fine lens. But the lens seems to be unpredictably brilliant (on mine anyway) and sort of mediocre or just sucky the other 80 percent of the time.