Gotta Love the Olympus XA

BardParker · Apr 15, 2012

[/url] 18210018.jpg by KentWebb, on Flickr[/IMG]

Behind the Ahwahnee Hotel. Yosemite, CA. Kodak BW400CN. Process and scan.

[/url] 18210017.jpg by KentWebb, on Flickr[/IMG]

Behind the Ahwahnee Hotel. Yosemite, CA. Kodak BW400CN. Process and scan.

[/url] 18220033.jpg by KentWebb, on Flickr[/IMG]

Upper Yosemite Falls. Kodak BW400CN. Process and scan

[/url] 18210032.jpg by KentWebb, on Flickr[/IMG]

Tunnel View. Olympus XA. Kodak BW400CN. Process and scan.

[/url] 18210025.jpg by KentWebb, on Flickr[/IMG]

Deer in the Woods, Yosemite. Olympus XA. Kodak BW400CN. Process and scan.

No digital manipulation except resizing.

I had one of these in college. Lost it. Bought another on ebay about 10 years ago, but rarely used it. I'm really enjoying this great little camera again!
Kent

berraneck · Apr 15, 2012

I grade OlyXA as the best of all Mr.Maitani´s masterpieces Nice pictures indeed!

zsas · Apr 15, 2012

Outstanding! How did you do this? Straight or use the backlight +1.5 button?

I went from owning one XA, to three! One is a parts camera in case the other two fail. I use them all the time! One has 50ASA the other 400. Such a joy of a camera!

BardParker · Apr 15, 2012

These were all straight shots on Kodak BW400CN rated at ISO 200, C41 process and scan. No filters. I find I get better contrast with this film rated one stop over... So I guess it's kind of like using the backlight +1.5 button for each shot.

Dr.Pain-MD · Apr 15, 2012

I love the XA series, absolutely amazing cameras they are! I always have either my XA or XA-2 with me. They never disappoint me, the results are always excellent.

Opiatephoto · Apr 15, 2012

I have one in my pocket every time I hike or bike. The lens is a wonder. Much easier to carry than a SLR.

baachitraka · Apr 16, 2012

zsas said:
Outstanding! How did you do this? Straight or use the backlight +1.5 button?

I went from owning one XA, to three! One is a parts camera in case the other two fail. I use them all the time! One has 50ASA the other 400. Such a joy of a camera!

Amazing that you get very nice separation between the sky and the clouds, without using a filter.

Pumalite · Apr 16, 2012

I have to join the chorus...

BardParker · Apr 16, 2012

For comparison with the XA, here's a shot taken about the same time with my Pentax 645N and FA 45-85 lens, on Velvia 50, Precision Camera, Austin - process and scan. I think the XA holds up well, especially considering it was shot on a monopod and the pentax was on a tripod.

Regards,
Kent

[/url] 90800011.jpg by KentWebb, on Flickr[/IMG]

baachitraka · Apr 16, 2012

I still wonder how you manage to get the seperation between the sky and the clouds with XA + BW400CN?

zsas · Apr 16, 2012

zsas said:
Outstanding! How did you do this? Straight or use the backlight +1.5 button?

I went from owning one XA, to three! One is a parts camera in case the other two fail. I use them all the time! One has 50ASA the other 400. Such a joy of a camera!

baachitraka said:

Amazing that you get very nice separation between the sky and the clouds, without using a filter.

Click to expand...

Baachitraka - That is the OP's (Kent) photograph! I wish it were mine! A heck of a photograph!

BardParker · Apr 16, 2012

baachitraka said:
I still wonder how you manage to get the seperation between the sky and the clouds with XA + BW400CN?

I'm not really sure, either. Maybe it was because the sky was broken and sunlight was starting to poke through. Also I was at a 90 degree angle to the sun. You can see on the other images that the sky is pretty much washed out. Here's a couple more XA shots that seem to show the separation fairly well:

[/url] 18220031.jpg by KentWebb, on Flickr[/IMG]

[/url] 18220029.jpg by KentWebb, on Flickr[/IMG]

[/url] 18220024.jpg by KentWebb, on Flickr[/IMG]

Kent

dynachrome · Apr 16, 2012

I've never liked the XA. I have a couple of XA-2s somewhere. The XA is an interesting camera with a good lens but I'd rather put up with the extra weight and carry an SLR. I'm less worried that it will break. If I must carry a smaller camera I would rather use a Minolta Hi-Matic 7SII or an Ollympus 35SP or even a Rollei 35. A neighbor bought an XA years ago, against my advice. She added insult to injury by buying from a not very reputable dealer. A few months later the camera was broken and she came to me for help in getting it fixed.

wblynch · Apr 16, 2012

I like the XA. I have 2 plus an XA2.

I don't use them much, as the Stylus Epic is so darned handy, but they are fun and give cool photos.

And very quiet.

BardParker · Apr 16, 2012

dynachrome said:
I've never liked the XA. I have a couple of XA-2s somewhere. The XA is an interesting camera with a good lens but I'd rather put up with the extra weight and carry an SLR. I'm less worried that it will break. If I must carry a smaller camera I would rather use a Minolta Hi-Matic 7SII or an Ollympus 35SP or even a Rollei 35. A neighbor bought an XA years ago, against my advice. She added insult to injury by buying from a not very reputable dealer. A few months later the camera was broken and she came to me for help in getting it fixed.

dynachrome, please elaborate on WHY you don't like the Olympus XA? (Other than wanting to carry a heavier SLR and having a neighbor who broke an XA). I have had 2 XA's and my brother has had a XA-2 over the past 30 or so years and have found them to be very robust with their clamshell lens cover. Personally, I like the control the XA gives me over my images. The XA-2 gives some control, but less, but is a great street photography film camera. Quiet, unobtrusive. I have also had an older stylus epic w 3.5 lens, and a newer Stylus Epic w 2.8 lens (MjuII). These are great Point and Shoot cameras with fantastic images but almost no control over exposure, other than film selection. :confused:

Regards,
Kent

eurekaiv · Apr 17, 2012

Both the XA and XA2 are really cool little cameras but I have to say I prefer using my XA2. I find the focus lever on the XA difficult to get my finger on when I want to focus manually and easy to knock out of focus when I want to set it hyper-focally.

Dave R. · Apr 17, 2012

Outstanding pictures! I love my XA, I get great results from it, and it fits in my pocket!

chuck94022 · Apr 18, 2012

Nice photos. Curious about "processed and scanned" only statement by the original poster. Most (except perhaps for the deer shot) appear to have been sharpened at least. Was the scan done by the processor? If so, they also sharpened. If done by the OP, probably he had some sharpening and perhaps curves set in the scanner - curves in the scanner could account for some of the sky separation I presume. Still, for no filters, it is certainly nice separation of sky and cloud. Not trying to drag this into a d* discussion, just curious.

dynachrome · Apr 18, 2012

The issues I have with the XA are that in comparison with SLRs its somewhat delicate, that I like to have a little more control over exposure when I shoot and that as an RF camera (with no mirror box) close focusing is not practical. I like using a camera like the Canon F-1 with its 12 degree metering, its solid build and its ability to accept a macro lens. I have a nice collection of fixed lens RF cameras and they are all capable of excellent results under the right conditions. The older and larger cameras like the Konica Auto S1.6/Auto S2 and Minolta Hi-Matic 7S/9 seem more sturdy than the smaller ones like the Canonet QL17 GIII or Minolta Hi-Matic 7SII or Olympus 35RC. None of these would be as sturdy as a mechanical Nikkormat (FTN/FT2/FT3) and it's also a matter of what you like. The XA is an interesting and capable camera but not one of my favorites.

Pumalite · Apr 18, 2012

BardParker said:
dynachrome, please elaborate on WHY you don't like the Olympus XA? (Other than wanting to carry a heavier SLR and having a neighbor who broke an XA). I have had 2 XA's and my brother has had a XA-2 over the past 30 or so years and have found them to be very robust with their clamshell lens cover. Personally, I like the control the XA gives me over my images. The XA-2 gives some control, but less, but is a great street photography film camera. Quiet, unobtrusive. I have also had an older stylus epic w 3.5 lens, and a newer Stylus Epic w 2.8 lens (MjuII). These are great Point and Shoot cameras with fantastic images but almost no control over exposure, other than film selection. :confused:

Regards,
Kent

+1

wblynch · Apr 18, 2012

In this thread celebrating love for the Olympus XA, I don't understand someone coming here to pur it down or make comments about other cameras.

Would it not make more sense just to stay away? Or make a thread for the camera that you do love?

Just saying....

eurekaiv · Apr 18, 2012

I think the answer is a resounding no. Anyone who's spent a large amount of time visiting (or especially running) an internet forum would know, people that like the XYZ (or it's variants) are clearly uneducated dolts, with no taste or insite, into what a proper, usable widget is or should be. Duh. If they weren't so near sighted, smarter, or actually paid any attention to reality at all, they would be using ABC instead. It so obviously outperforms XYZ that it's comical. Even starving children in Africa are laughing about it.

thuggins · Apr 18, 2012

BardParker said:
have found them to be very robust with their clamshell lens cover. Kent

It's called a "sliding dust barrier". It has never been anything except a "sliding dust barrier". I'm kind of curious as to what kind of weird-ass clams you've seen.

BardParker · Apr 18, 2012

chuck94022 said:
Nice photos. Curious about "processed and scanned" only statement by the original poster. Most (except perhaps for the deer shot) appear to have been sharpened at least. Was the scan done by the processor? If so, they also sharpened. If done by the OP, probably he had some sharpening and perhaps curves set in the scanner - curves in the scanner could account for some of the sky separation I presume. Still, for no filters, it is certainly nice separation of sky and cloud. Not trying to drag this into a d* discussion, just curious.

No sharpening done by me. I just imported the CD images as straight scans into lightroom and exported them to flickr. I didn't request sharpening on my order. But I was curious, so I called Precision Camera in Austin, and spoke to the lab director who confirmed that, as a default, they DO use autosharpening on their high resolution Noritsu scanner. In any event, this was my first film processing order with Precision Camera, and I was very impressed with the quality.

chuck94022 · Apr 18, 2012

BardParker said:
No sharpening done by me. I just imported the CD images as straight scans into lightroom and exported them to flickr. I didn't request sharpening on my order. But I was curious, so I called Precision Camera in Austin, and spoke to the lab director who confirmed that, as a default, they DO use autosharpening on their high resolution Noritsu scanner. In any event, this was my first film processing order with Precision Camera, and I was very impressed with the quality.

That's what I thought. You can easily tell by zooming in on the ridge line of the mountain - you'll see the telltale sign of sharpening by noticing that the sky pixels adjacent to the dark ridge pixels are brighter than the surrounding sky pixels. That's what sharpening does. Anyway, nice shots.

---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.928154,116.427981

Gotta Love the Olympus XA

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency