Olympus XA vs XA2

[pdeeh]

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 ...

 

[macfred]

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 ...

Self-denial and strict discipline ...

 

[Jon Buffington]

I prefer my xa4 over my xa. Reason...28mm focal length, I find this lens sharper than the xa's, the zone focus options work well, pseudo macro mode.

I expanded on this last year in a blog post, http://jpbuffington.com/?p=143

 

[macfred]

...
I expanded on this last year in a blog post, http://jpbuffington.com/?p=143

Thank you, Jon - that's an interesting read and a some very nice photographs!

 

[zen_zanon]

I owned multiple versions of both...and the XA2 lens is noticeably sharper in my experience.

 

[ericdan]

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?

 

[miha]

I use an XA, purchased almost 20 years ago, S/H of course. Was serviced at Luton Camera in 2013 for a very reasonable amount. It's my all time favourite camera.

An interesting link here: http://www.diaxa.com/xa.htm

 

[macfred]

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?

Maybe the XA repair manual can help - http://mattsclassiccameras.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/OlympusXA_repair.pdf

 

[bvy]

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:
https://www.flickr.com/groups/52897625@N00/discuss/72057594065073128/

 

[oneANT]

the small bearing, is not a ball, is a 2mm diameter post, a roller-bearing, just like a 4mm long post (a stainless sewing 2mm needle trimmed otherwise might fit) ..search the area you did the disassembly. It is a loose fit, is held on by the door itself. A magnet will find it in carpet if that happened.

 

[thuggins]

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.

Having compare the XA and XA2 results side by side, I concur. They are both great lenses and I do not believe anyone could see a difference between them. I used to reset the focus on the XA2 to "mountains" each time, but on a sunny day the hyperfocal setting is fine. I have specifically tested it and see no problem with the image quality.

But for a nice sunny day with 100 or 400 ASA film, I'll take the XA1 any day. Just like it's progenitors, the Trip and Pen before it, exposure is perfect (with slide film) and the image quality is great. And the XA1 lets you lock the exposure with a half press of the release, something no other XA can do.

 

[John Wiegerink]

I owned multiple versions of both...and the XA2 lens is noticeably sharper in my experience.

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! JohnW

 

[Theo Sulphate]

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.

 

[blockend]

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.

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.

 

[Chan Tran]

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.

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

It doesn't shoot everything at 3.5 you know...

 

[klownshed]

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. The manual states the exposure range is 2 secs to 1/750, F3.5 - F14

You can't choose the aperture, but unless the light is low, you'll rarely be shooting anywhere near f3.5.

 

[thuggins]

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.

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

 

[thuggins]

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.

 

[Cholentpot]

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.

 

[thuggins]

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.

 

[Cholentpot]

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 got some really nice photos from my pair of XA2s. I do find I need bright sunlight or 800 speed film to really get the best out of it though.

 

[blockend]

the absolute best lens is on the Stylus Epic (otherwise known as the Mu II, with its various corrupted spellings).

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.

 

[klownshed]

the lens on the Stylus Epic is one of the best camera lenses ever made

Maybe, but that's only any good when the rest of the camera works. The Mju ii is a fantastic but fragile camera.

I say this as the owner of both a couple of Mju iis and a couple of XA-2s. Both of the Mjus are d-E-ad unfortunately, My XA-2s are, relatively speaking, indestructible!