- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,297
- Format
- Multi Format
I bought mine for $1.50 at a thrift store. I love it!
A video for Olympus XA fans
-
A
- Thread starter Mainecoonmaniac
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Zenza Bronica S2 Outfit - S2 Body, 75mm lens, 135mm lens, 120 film back
- Started by indy_kid
-
For Sale Hasselblad 500 C Outfit - Body, 3 Finders, A24 Film Back, More!
- Started by indy_kid
-
For Sale Toyo-View D45M LF Camera, Symmar 150mm/f5.6 Lens, 45R Binocular Finder
- Started by indy_kid
-
For Sale Guess what I found! 6 packs of Polaroid 665!!!
- Started by Early Riser
Forum statistics
Hard to beat that price for sure.
Congratulations
Congratulations
$1.50 is a steal! Have lots of fun with it!
I bought mine for $150 and also love it!
OP
OP
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,297
- Format
- Multi Format
Nice photographs, the guy has a very good eye. There are a couple of issues with his description. The XA has two meter circuits. The one showing in the viewfinder has nothing to do with the exposure, it is merely an FYI for the photographer. The circuit that actually sets the exposure gives no indication of its reading. It is apparently fairly common for the viewfinder scale to be off from the actual exposure. Mine reads two stops too fast, but the actual exposures are perfect (with slide film). I've seen various comments from folks experiencing the same thing.
He makes a big deal about the rangefinder, which is widely recognized as being of little value on a 35mm lens. The focusing scale only has four values (in feet). 2.8, 4, 8, and infinity, with 8 being marked as the hyperfocal setting. At ten feet there is essentially no indication in the RF patch at all. Of course, this feature does make the XA the smallest AE rangefinder ever made.
Finally, it's a sliding dust barrier, not a frigging "clam shell". What kind of weird-ass clams have sliding shells? The real irony with this term is that there are many cameras that have a "clam shell design". All classic folders are "clam shell" cameras. The XA's main competitor for the title of "Smallest Full Frame 35mm Camera", the Minox 35, is actually a "clam shell" camera. The XA (nor any of its successors that use a sliding lens cover) is not a "clam shell".
He makes a big deal about the rangefinder, which is widely recognized as being of little value on a 35mm lens. The focusing scale only has four values (in feet). 2.8, 4, 8, and infinity, with 8 being marked as the hyperfocal setting. At ten feet there is essentially no indication in the RF patch at all. Of course, this feature does make the XA the smallest AE rangefinder ever made.
Finally, it's a sliding dust barrier, not a frigging "clam shell". What kind of weird-ass clams have sliding shells? The real irony with this term is that there are many cameras that have a "clam shell design". All classic folders are "clam shell" cameras. The XA's main competitor for the title of "Smallest Full Frame 35mm Camera", the Minox 35, is actually a "clam shell" camera. The XA (nor any of its successors that use a sliding lens cover) is not a "clam shell".
OP
OP
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2009
- Messages
- 6,297
- Format
- Multi Format
Yep. When I first used the camera, my first reaction after looking at the exposure of the view finder as the camera's exposure is off. After processing my first roll, the exposure was pretty much spot on even though the needed in the view finder was off. It's really a great camera.
If you are good at DIY repairs, you can disassemble the camera and adjust the viewfinder needle by its corresponding rheostat.
I am not sure i understand.
If the viewfinder says (have no idea how it actually looks) 5.6 @ 250........ is that not going to match the lens and shutter dial.?
The camera sets the shutter speed automatically based on the aperture setting, iso setting, and measured light, but the meter that controls the shutter speed is not the same meter that moves the needle in the display. When new they were probably closely aligned, but after 40 years, the needle in the viewfinder may have nothing to do with the actual shutter speed being used.
Thanks for the video link.
I don’t think we really care how much you paid for your camera but it’s touching that you shared.
I’m sure we can all agree that the XA truly was a wonderful camera and it’s a shame they don’t make them anymore as what seemed disposable and ephemeral at the time becomes ever more precious, just like the people we all were when they did make XAs
Indeed. Most of my young family pics were taken with one of two of these we had. I used both of them a LOT, and they eventually stopped working and were thrown out. They weren’t exactly cheap when they were being made, but when they broke you just bought something else.
I was fortunate recently to pick up a working example, I look forward to using it soon. It came with a Rollei 35 which I had always had a hankering for, but it is really quirky compared to the simplicity of the Olympus.
I was fortunate recently to pick up a working example, I look forward to using it soon. It came with a Rollei 35 which I had always had a hankering for, but it is really quirky compared to the simplicity of the Olympus.
My favorite of the family is the XA1. The soul of a Trip and the body of an XA. It has a real shutter release and not that awful red button that doesn't actually press. And given my experience with Trips, and selenium meters in general, the 1's will still be running long after the others have crapped out (my XA4 is currently DOA).
Mine is about 1 stop off. But the main exposure meter works very well and that's what matters.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |