My only experience of an XA4 was an utterly awful one, as it consists of me finding one in a charity shop for about £10.00 AND I DIDN'T BUY IT ...
It seems pretty rare these days - experiences ?
My only experience of an XA4 was an utterly awful one, as it consists of me finding one in a charity shop for about £10.00 AND I DIDN'T BUY IT ...
...
I expanded on this last year in a blog post, http://jpbuffington.com/?p=143
I actually tried that and cleaned the camera. put the sliding cover back on, but it seems loose and doesn't lock. what's the trick to get it locking again?Right. In the case of the XA, it's not a lost cause if you address it right away. With some finagling, the sliding cover will come off enabling a thorough cleaning. Afterwards, I think it worked better than before the sand incident. What you don't want to do is keep using it hoping it will work itself out.
I actually tried that and cleaned the camera. put the sliding cover back on, but it seems loose and doesn't lock. what's the trick to get it locking again?
Had to think about it a minute. It's been two years since this happened. There's a tiny ball bearing that has to be put back in place when replacing the cover. If you don't know it's there, it's easy to lose during disassembly. Without it, the cover will slide but won't lock. I don't remember the details, but have a look at this:I actually tried that and cleaned the camera. put the sliding cover back on, but it seems loose and doesn't lock. what's the trick to get it locking again?
Some people have suggested the 4-element lens is sharper at most apertures. I like the XA3 because it has higher ISO capability and backlight compensation. Re-setting the camera to mid distance when it's closed is also neat. Whatever, the XA series are pretty ancient plastic cameras and that should be born in mind if people are looking for a workhorse.
I have to agree with you. I wanted something smaller than my Nikon F2AS to use as a light travel and snap-shot camera. My wife bought me a brand new XA when it first hit the counter at a local camera store. I used that camera for a couple of years and was never really satisfied with the results. The lens never really "kicked in" until between f5.6 and f8. I loved the size, weight and control layout, but the lens and also the hairy shutter release left a lot to be desired. Later I picked up a cheap XA2 thinking it would be a notch down image wise compared to the XA. Wrong! I liked it much better and it got me hooked on "small" after that. As years went by I chanced by several XA's and bought them. Thinking I should find one that would outshine my first one. Nope! Now my only "little" cameras are the Minox 35 series. Why? Better lens, nice and small. Oh, and it takes the place of where my cigarettes were carried in my shirt pocket. Yup, lot healthier and more fun too! JohnWI owned multiple versions of both...and the XA2 lens is noticeably sharper in my experience.
I read somewhere that Olympus zone focus clamshells are optimised for the mid-distance setting, which may be why the landscape position doesn't yield best results. The same person reckoned it was preferable to use the default setting unless your subject was very close or light was inadequate.My experience has been the opposite: the XA has produced sharp images from wide open and up, from infinity to its closest focusing distance. My XA2 is softer unless conditions are bright enough that it'll be at f/8 and up and with a high shutter speed. Typically I use the long range distance setting.
The fact that the XA2 has fixed f/3.5 is the reason I decided not to use it. If I have a Nikon with a 35mm lens I would almost never use f/3.5. I would mostly use f/5.6 or f/8.
What makes you think the aperture is fixed at f3.5?The fact that the XA2 has fixed f/3.5 is the reason I decided not to use it. If I have a Nikon with a 35mm lens I would almost never use f/3.5. I would mostly use f/5.6 or f/8.
What makes you think the aperture is fixed at f3.5?
I'm pretty sure it isn't.
Remove the "I'm pretty sure..." part and you've nailed it.
I forgot to mention that as good and lovable as all the XA's are, the absolute best lens is on the Stylus Epic (otherwise known as the Mu II, with its various corrupted spellings). Some of the best images I've ever take were from the Stylus and even side by side against OM lenses, the color contrast and tonality are amazing. I've shot tens of thousands of images, the vast majority thru Zuiko glass, and can confidently say that the lens on the Stylus Epic is one of the best camera lenses ever made.
I'll see if the Stylus 120 I just picked up holds up to that standard.
I have a 105 LT and a 140 Zoom. While both of these have excellent lenses, they prove the rule that a prime is always better than a zoom.
As expected...I paid less than $10 for mine so I'm not going to cry if it takes sub-par photos.
Unless there is something wrong with it, it will not take "sub-par" photos. The zooms on those cameras were amazing given the size and weight. But the 35mm is really in a class by itself.
I've owned the mjuII since it came out. The lens is good enough but I haven't noticed any difference between it and the XA series.the absolute best lens is on the Stylus Epic (otherwise known as the Mu II, with its various corrupted spellings).
the lens on the Stylus Epic is one of the best camera lenses ever made
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?