Point and shoot price inflation

[xkaes]

Sounds like you need an Agat 18 or 18K with a Vivitar 50 or Yashica CS-10 -- but there are lots of even smaller cameras with built-in flashes.

 

[KerrKid]

The need to put it in your pocket is key - lots of people coming into this game have only ever had a camera on their phone. They don't want some bag or neck strap. The internet has taught people that a fixed focal length and 2.8 lens is ideal. All the cult cameras meet this requirement.

I think for the most part this is true, although the K1000 seems to be a hot seller.

 

[Randy Stewart]

The Olympus XA is something of a cult classic. The XA's prices have increased -- somewhat -- since I bought mine over 20 years ago. I paid about $100 for it back then, maybe less, I don't remember anymore. These days, you're looking at $140-150 to get a good clean one in full operating condition. Considering inflation, that's not so bad.

The XA was made from 1979 into the mid-80s. Most of that time, a used one turned over with flash for about $75. When discontinued, there was a Japanese camera collecting craze in progress, and Japanese dealers started snapping them up, driving the use proves up to around $175. After a couple of years, that boom crashed, leaving dealers stuck with hoards of XA units they could sell for more than $50. Huge losses were eaten. Over the last decade, social media hype has renewed that type of inflation in the XA, which is basically a tterrible camera optically, but convenient to take along and use for snapshots. It's still a $50 camera were performance is compared to other, similar models.

 

[MattKing]

We will have to agree to disagree about the quality/qualities of the Olympus XA.

 

[Roseha]

I have a dead Contax TVS. Bought new, it served me well. Great camera but now it's over.

I had a nice little Contax TVS that I bought for $100 on Ebay. A couple of years ago the viewfinder suddenly went all blurry and there is no way I can fix it.

I have two Olympus XAs. One is stuck on the 10 second timer after being out in the snow but it still works otherwise. They work well for me.

 

[Cholentpot]

The XA was made from 1979 into the mid-80s. Most of that time, a used one turned over with flash for about $75. When discontinued, there was a Japanese camera collecting craze in progress, and Japanese dealers started snapping them up, driving the use proves up to around $175. After a couple of years, that boom crashed, leaving dealers stuck with hoards of XA units they could sell for more than $50. Huge losses were eaten. Over the last decade, social media hype has renewed that type of inflation in the XA, which is basically a tterrible camera optically, but convenient to take along and use for snapshots. It's still a $50 camera were performance is compared to other, similar models.

Terrible? That's maybe getting a little carried away. It's no Leica, or even Nikon but it holds its own. Sometimes you even get this awesome glow when the conditions are right.

 

[reddesert]

The Olympus XA is a capable camera. It's probably not a Leica that fits in your pocket, but that is ok. It has gotten some static on Photrio for being overpriced (relative to, I dunno, a 35mm SLR or fixed-lens rangefinder), but even after recent increases in camera prices, it's not that expensive. I think it's still a lot less than currently fashionable AF P+S like the Stylus or Yashica T4, much less boutique P+S like the Contax. (Checks ebay: recently sold XA maybe $130-180, XA2 around $100-120, T4 around $400-600 yikes.)

I find it a little odd that the XA2 and XA3 are nearly as in demand as the XA, as they were always quite lesser siblings. Fun to use but not the same. None of these have AF, so perhaps less attractive to people coming from digital cameras, but also less electronics and mechanics to fail. And the XA's have no shutter lag. I despise shutter lag, IMO the worst issue of most P+S.

 

[Cholentpot]

The Olympus XA is a capable camera. It's probably not a Leica that fits in your pocket, but that is ok. It has gotten some static on Photrio for being overpriced (relative to, I dunno, a 35mm SLR or fixed-lens rangefinder), but even after recent increases in camera prices, it's not that expensive. I think it's still a lot less than currently fashionable AF P+S like the Stylus or Yashica T4, much less boutique P+S like the Contax. (Checks ebay: recently sold XA maybe $130-180, XA2 around $100-120, T4 around $400-600 yikes.)

I find it a little odd that the XA2 and XA3 are nearly as in demand as the XA, as they were always quite lesser siblings. Fun to use but not the same. None of these have AF, so perhaps less attractive to people coming from digital cameras, but also less electronics and mechanics to fail. And the XA's have no shutter lag. I despise shutter lag, IMO the worst issue of most P+S.

Right on about shutter lag. I have many a camera sitting on a shelf unused because of the terrible shutter lag.

 

[xkaes]

I saw some Ektachrome slides of deep inside the Grand Canyon, taken with an XA -- on a BIG screen -- and was absolutely impressed.

While some of the shots would have benefited from a wider lens, if you are backpacking in the GC, you need to travel light -- because you have to carry ALL your water. The XA is perfect for that.

 

[KerrKid]

This is the first time I've ever heard the XA series being considered optically terrible. Hopefully, that idea will spread so I can pick up some more on the cheap.

 

[Huss]

This is the first time I've ever heard the XA series being considered optically terrible. Hopefully, that idea will spread so I can pick up some more on the cheap.

Well it's not as bad as that garbage lens in the Contax T3.

 

[Paul Howell]

I guess a 6 element in groups 35mm 2.8 made by one of the best lens makers of the day, just a pity that it cant take a good image.

 

[Tadeusz123]

I find the ever-increasing prices on the P+S cameras to be very interesting, especially because of their irreparability. $200-300 is much better spent, in my opinion, on something (preferably mechanical) that can be repaired by someone with enough mechanical sense and instruction. The same money spent on an XA or Contax that has the potential to become a paperweight seemingly at random just does not quite make sense to me.

That being said, I understand the appeal of having something that can fit in a coat pocket and take decent/good pictures with ease. There really isn't a comparison between the quickness of use between something like an OIympus XA and even something small like a Retina - to say nothing of the weight differences.

 

[KerrKid]

Well it's not as bad as that garbage lens in the Contax T3.

What do expect from off-brand cameras with lenses ground from soda bottles?

 

[KerrKid]

I guess a 6 element in groups 35mm 2.8 made by one of the best lens makers of the day, just a pity that it cant take a good image.

They probably made the mistake of coating the lens.

 

[KerrKid]

I find the ever-increasing prices on the P+S cameras to be very interesting, especially because of their irreparability. $200-300 is much better spent, in my opinion, on something (preferably mechanical) that can be repaired by someone with enough mechanical sense and instruction. The same money spent on an XA or Contax that has the potential to become a paperweight seemingly at random just does not quite make sense to me.

That being said, I understand the appeal of having something that can fit in a coat pocket and take decent/good pictures with ease. There really isn't a comparison between the quickness of use between something like an OIympus XA and even something small like a Retina - to say nothing of the weight differences.

I’ve recently bought excellent XA2’s on eBay for less than $30. My original was purchased in the early 1980’s and is still working fine. I haven’t read where these are unreliable, but they may be and I’ve just gotten lucky. I guess for $30 I can take that chance.

 

[reddesert]

I don't think something like an Olympus XA is terribly unreliable because of its electronics. The electronics in an XA are fairly simple since it is early 80s vintage and just controls the meter and shutter - not much more complex than an early electronic-shutter SLR. (It has a few switches for door open/close and so on, and those might get dirty, but they also might be cleanable.) Later AF P+Ses with AF motors, LCD displays, zoom viewfinders, and so on seem to be more vulnerable. Anyway, I would feel differently about a US$100 camera that might someday fail than a $500 camera that might someday fail. Other people will draw the line different places.

Suppose you think in terms of equivalent rolls of film. If an energetic modern hipster puts a roll of film a week, 50 rolls/year, through one camera, and spends $10-25 per roll on film+processing, then if the $500 camera dies after 3 years it still was a small fraction of the cost of his or her hobby. But if it's 5 rolls/year then the proportion is different.

 

[Huss]

What do expect from off-brand cameras with lenses ground from soda bottles?

Not much.

 

[Bob L]

I had an XA. Always found the thing a bit fiddly (the shutter, for sure). My RF patch was faded too, which made it a challenge. I think it has its qualities. I liked the vignetting, actually.

To me, though, it's small, but not really pants pocket small, so why not get something 20% larger and better ergonomically? At least that was where I landed with it.

 

[KerrKid]

I just saw pricing for Pentax 928M's on eBay. What the heck happened!? The 928M was supposed to be the red-haired stepchild of the Pentax 928 series and now it is going for stupid prices. And the regular 928 which the reviews said was better, is not. I don't get it. I paid $40-50 for my 928M not that long ago and even got on here and whined about how I'd gotten the wrong model and overpaid. Now the 928M is going for 2-3 times what I paid.

When did this camera become so desirable? It's a crazy upside down world.

 

[xkaes]

I had an XA.

To me, though, it's small, but not really pants pocket small,

You must have small pockets or tight pants. I can fit a Pen D3 in my jeans without much trouble. XA? Shirt pocket.

 

[KerrKid]

You must have small pockets or tight pants. I can fit a Pen D3 in my jeans without much trouble. XA? Shirt pocket.

I just put 3 XA2's in the front pocket of my jeans. The top one was peeking out a bit but they all fit.

 

[Bob L]

I just put 3 XA2's in the front pocket of my jeans. The top one was peeking out a bit but they all fit.

Wow, I guess JNCO's are coming back.

 

[MattKing]

I just put 3 XA2's in the front pocket of my jeans. The top one was peeking out a bit but they all fit.

After I read this post I started searching for info on pants with large pockets. Apparently, for women, this is a thing!

 

[KerrKid]

Wow, I guess JNCO's are coming back.

Not hardly. Wrangler cowboy cut jeans. 33” X 34” Sheesh. It’s not magic.