Another price differential that absolutely floors me (and I really mean 'floors me')

AgX said:

Not quite.
So far I never ever came across a used Holga.

Click to expand...

Holders must be waiting for new generation to be in awes with this phenomenal piece of gear, so they sell twice the original (and outrageous) price

Witold said:

This belongs to cult member oath of allegiance, not factual in its core sense.

When I think of XA, I cannot help but equate its enigma to Holga. Holga was just a brilliant marketing stunt that took the world by its horns and never looked back, despite where it actually stands in overall quality department or capabilities. But I have always given Holga credit where its due, it kept up film demand when it was dwindling quick, and we can all be thankful for that.

Click to expand...

I guess you weren't involved with selling cameras when the XA was introduced. When it came on to the market, I was selling cameras, and it's size, features and qualities were unmatched, and to my mind remain unmatched.
It has its limitations, and if you don't want or need its portability, in some circumstances you can get slightly better results from larger cameras, but buying a larger camera defeats the reason to buy an XA in the first place.

MattKing said:

I guess you weren't involved with selling cameras when the XA was introduced. When it came on to the market, I was selling cameras, and it's size, features and qualities were unmatched, and to my mind remain unmatched.
It has its limitations, and if you don't want or need its portability, in some circumstances you can get slightly better results from larger cameras, but buying a larger camera defeats the reason to buy an XA in the first place.

Click to expand...

Not sure if Holga and XA has in common, as well. I also don't think it was any marketing stunt with Holga. They are just good cameras with good results. Different than from XA,

I have no idea where you guys got some sort of quality equalization from me on the XA vs. HOLGA. All I said, IMO of course, both are overhyped and draw prices incosistent with what they offer. Holga a quality camera? Which one are we looking at? I suggest to check out advertising history of Holga so perhaps you can see where I see a pure marketing stunt which proved financially on the money. And on top I continue to praise Holga for giving film market a demand it so needed some years back.

Witold said:

Well, the XA has some stupid cult value that is for sure and Canon is far more common. But $13 for QL17 is closer to free, $135 for XA is qual to stupid (to pay that much). But to state that XA has better "engineering design", that is beyond myth, likely derived from its ... well ... stupid cult status.

If Andy (Warhol) shot with either, that garbage would have gone for a million from either camera, if Joe Doe looked up what camera is going to help sell his garbage photo for more, he would have been told ... the XA.

Click to expand...

I paid $179 for the XA and the A11 flash brand new when it came out. I wasn't interested in the QL17 but I think it was about $100 if I am not mistaken. I now have them both but I do prefer the XA over the QL17.

Chan Tran said:

I paid $179 for the XA and the A11 flash brand new when it came out. I wasn't interested in the QL17 but I think it was about $100 if I am not mistaken. I now have them both but I do prefer the XA over the QL17.

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with preferring one over the other. Thread veered off a bit, perhaps I'm partly guilty for that, but I find XA price brought up by OP and in fact much higher in many other places, stemming from years long talk about photographic superiority of the XA, and by this I mean comparisons to high grade cameras and lenses, and that is all bolex. I can see how XA is small, easily pocketable and as such easy to carry around, great, it's the other part of the XA push I despise. Not to say its lens isn't good, or metering isn't capable, and I have no doubts that it can be joy to use and can deliver great images.

But all too often perspective is completely lost when a product is being pushed and that to me has always been the case with XA and many others.

No idea why you are drawing Holga as overhyped and overpriced. Where I’m is see Holgas at cameras stores without crazy price tags. And I doubt XA price is any close to overpriced Leica P&S or some of those fancy advanced P&S which are associated with some celebrities. We are talking about hundreds of dollars.

Witold said:

Nothing wrong with preferring one over the other. Thread veered off a bit, perhaps I'm partly guilty for that, but I find XA price brought up by OP and in fact much higher in many other places, stemming from years long talk about photographic superiority of the XA, and by this I mean comparisons to high grade cameras and lenses, and that is all bolex. I can see how XA is small, easily pocketable and as such easy to carry around, great, it's the other part of the XA push I despise. Not to say its lens isn't good, or metering isn't capable, and I have no doubts that it can be joy to use and can deliver great images.

But all too often perspective is completely lost when a product is being pushed and that to me has always been the case with XA and many others.

Click to expand...

If anyone is "pushing" this tiny camera they're doing a poor job of it. It's still a cheap camera. I don't get all the fuss about a camera that costs less than you'd spend on film and processing after just a few months of normal use.

David Lyga said:

In Like New Minus condition, KEH is offering to buy your Canon QL17 with 40mm / f1.7 lens for a whopping $13.

In Like New Minus condition, KEH is offering to buy your Olympus XA for $135.

Now, does ANYONE HERE think that the Canon is any way 'inferior' to the auto-only Olympus? There is more than a 10X differential folks. Why? Trendiness plays too large a part in today's collectible paradigm. - David Lyga

Click to expand...

kind of socks that no one wants the canon lens and your xa is in vogue. one could have said the same thing about a
sea-green 23 window vw bus about 5 years ago, couldn't give them away, then about a year ago one sold at auction via the same auction house for 700,000$
a few years ago i could have sold 6 100 sheet boxes of 8x10 azo paper and paid for a years worth of college tuition, now >> not so much
what a dealer wants to pay you for something has nothing to do with how much its worth to you but how much they think it will hang around their shop and if it is something someone wants.
the famous wooden whale hunting helmet episode of antiques road show should also be watched, something bought for IDK 30$ is worth 300,000?
and of course pornstars porn shop, their expert appraiser says " in my shop i'd sell it for 10,000$" and the dealer offers the bringer-inner 1,000$ for the item
cause no one wants the item and it will just take up space (cost rent)

btw i bought an oly NIB in a shrinkwrapped box ( from KEH ) stylus for about 21$ SHIPPED, they sell + sold for a lot more.