Olympus XA2 blows my mind

ericdan · Apr 8, 2015

I was shooting two cameras, a Leica M and a GR1v.
The GR1v was a lot of fun, but it finally broke and fixing it is prohibitely expensive.

I ended up getting an Olympus XA2 for 500yen on an auction site.
This was exactly 110 times cheaper than my GR1v and I swear, other than the focal length I can't tell any difference.
I shot two rolls of each B&W, C-41 and E-6 and the results are amazing.

I would even say that I cannot tell the difference between a photo shot on my Leica or my XA2.

TheToadMen · Apr 8, 2015

Can you show us some images you made?

I just finished my first roll with my XA2, but haven't developed it. Can't wait to see the results.
It's an easy and compact camera I can carry in my pocket. The trigger is a bit sensitive, though.

ericdan · Apr 8, 2015

Can't post pics here. That would be a digital representation and get me banned from the forum.

Sent from Tapatalk

TheToadMen · Apr 8, 2015

ericdan said:
Can't post pics here. That would be a digital representation and get me banned from the forum.

Sent from Tapatalk

You're allowed to scan analogue negatives or prints to show it here. Not even a problem if you use PS to invert a negative into a positive.

ericdan · Apr 8, 2015

Ok, that was partially a joke.
I can upload something when I get home. I scan them on a V750, so the quality is limited by that.

TheToadMen · Apr 8, 2015

ericdan said:
Ok, that was partially a joke.

:confused:

Sorry I missed that ... it's early in the morning overhere and I haven't had any coffee yet ...

bernard_L · Apr 8, 2015

Ok, that was partially a joke

ericdan, I receive you loud and clear. Yes, the sad part is that it is only partially a joke.

Back to your OP topic. Your post gives me some motivation to put my XA on top of the queue (for getting used), esp. in a true A/B comparison (same scene, same film) with a couple of other cameras (Minolta 7SII 40/1.7; Fed5 J-12 35/2.8). I need to find for myself if the reports of inferior optical quality at apertures wider than 5.6 are founded or internet legend.

baachitraka · Apr 8, 2015

...then you may need XA ;-)

Yes, they are sharp and contrasty. My favorite negatives are developed in Rodinal 2+75 for 9:30mins, that are shot with E.I 800 of ISO 400 film.

ericdan · Apr 8, 2015

I shot 400 speed film in bright daylight. Must've been max aperture. I like the results. I'll scan and post later.
Please don't ban me!!

Sent from Tapatalk

TheToadMen · Apr 8, 2015

ericdan said:
I'll scan and post later.
Please don't ban me!!
Sent from Tapatalk

As I said before ... no ... wait ... that's a joke again, isn't it?
Where's my coffee?

laser · Apr 8, 2015

I have an extra so I decided to offer it fore sale in APUG classifieds.

ericdan · Apr 8, 2015

Here are some photos taken with the XA2.
Sorry, for the "from the back photos" but just wanted to shoot through a test roll on each and the light was good.
Three focal settings are in order: "one person" " two persons" "mountain range"

C-41 Superia:

E-6 Provia:

B&W Tri-X:

Richard S. (rich815) · Apr 8, 2015

Shhhh. If you shoot almost any lens that's in good condition at f/5.6 or f/8.0 you'd have a hard time differentiating. Vast majority of lenses perform terrifically when stopped down a couple of notches.

ericdan · Apr 8, 2015

… which was the point of this post.

Sent from Tapatalk

Richard S. (rich815) · Apr 8, 2015

ericdan said:
which was the point of this post.

Sent from Tapatalk

Sorry. I thought your point was the XA2 blows your mind.

TheToadMen · Apr 8, 2015

Richard Sintchak (rich815) said:
Sorry. I thought your point was the XA2 blows your mind.

Cause and effect.

ericdan · Apr 8, 2015

Yes. I'm sure you can find all kinds of explanations for why I got decent results from my XA2, but all I know is: I put a roll of film in the XA2 and it gives me nice results.
Very similar to what I get from my Leica.
The leica was literally 1000x more expensive than the XA2

Sent from Tapatalk

TheToadMen · Apr 9, 2015

ericdan said:
Yes. I'm sure you can find all kinds of explanations for why I got decent results from my XA2, but all I know is: I put a roll of film in the XA2 and it gives me nice results.
Very similar to what I get from my Leica.
The leica was literally 1000x more expensive than the XA2

If it works for you and you're happy with it than stick to it. You've proven to yourself that Ansel Adams was right in saying:

" ... avoiding the common illusion that creativity depends on equipment alone ..."

You could always sell the Leica and buy a huge stash of film for the XA2 instead and be happy for an even much longer time.

ericdan · Apr 9, 2015

Ansel was right I guess.
But I'll keep the Leica to impress women.

Sent from Tapatalk

BetterSense · Apr 9, 2015

They are sharp, but once you notice that nasty mustache distortion you will see it in all the pictures.

ericdan · Apr 9, 2015

Mustache? Wow. I'll check

Sent from Tapatalk

Nuff · Apr 9, 2015

Yeap, just noticed the mustache, it can be seen very well in the first photo on the zebra crossing, the white lines are not straight and so is the sidewalk in the 2nd photo. But generally, it's a great camera and takes great photos. Just avoid straight lines.

ericdan · Apr 9, 2015

It is called barrel distortion - and it's sexy!

ericdan · Apr 9, 2015

If it's indeed mustache I'll be even happier.
Have to shoot some brick walls this weekend to test.

Chan Tran · Apr 11, 2015

Just bought an XA2 with the A11 flash at estate sale today. It's in very good condition. It seems a much cheaper version of the XA.

Olympus XA2 blows my mind

ericdan

TheToadMen

ericdan

TheToadMen

ericdan

TheToadMen

bernard_L

baachitraka

ericdan

TheToadMen

laser

Advertiser

ericdan

Attachments

Richard S. (rich815)

ericdan

Richard S. (rich815)

TheToadMen

ericdan

TheToadMen

Attachments

ericdan

BetterSense

ericdan

Nuff

ericdan

ericdan

Chan Tran

Olympus XA2 blows my mind

Advertiser

Attachments

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency