Shelfing the XA for a while...

bvy · Oct 6, 2016

I'm putting my Olympus XA on the shelf for a while. After developing a few rolls from this summer, it seems none of the frames are terribly sharp. It could be the rangefinder isn't very accurate, but I don't always rely on it. Often I zone focus at something reasonable (10 feet) stopped down to or past f/11. My point of reference is my Yashica T5 (same as the T4 Super) with autofocus and Zeiss lens. These images are consistently and satisfiably sharp, but I sacrifice a lot of control when I use it. Is it a fair comparison?

Jesper · Oct 6, 2016

Sounds a bit strange. I use my XA quite a lot with good results. Actually, I processed six rolls from a recent trip to Brighton last night. A week with an XA in my right coat pocket and an XA4 in my left. Too bad if you cannot use yours.

TheFlyingCamera · Oct 6, 2016

bvy said:
I'm putting my Olympus XA on the shelf for a while. After developing a few rolls from this summer, it seems none of the frames are terribly sharp. It could be the rangefinder isn't very accurate, but I don't always rely on it. Often I zone focus at something reasonable (10 feet) stopped down to or past f/11. My point of reference is my Yashica T5 (same as the T4 Super) with autofocus and Zeiss lens. These images are consistently and satisfiably sharp, but I sacrifice a lot of control when I use it. Is it a fair comparison?

If you're having issues with your XA, I'd send it in to a service technician and have it looked at - the XAs are held in very high regard for sharpness and color, so if you're getting fuzzy images, there's something wrong with your camera.

pdeeh · Oct 6, 2016

Of all the cameras I've used (excepting the digital ones with AF), my XAs consistently give me the best exposed and (usually) most accurately focused shots!
Still, it may just be that the XA simply doesn't suit you. In which case there's no point in labouring over it if you're not getting the results you want.
I had a beautifully crafted Bessa R2a, but while I admired it, I just didn't enjoy using that much. So it went.

Of course, the newest XAs are over 30 years old now and were never a precision instrument to begin with. They'll all die sooner or later.

(It's being so cheerful that keeps me going, y'know)

blockend · Oct 6, 2016

bvy said:
Often I zone focus at something reasonable (10 feet) stopped down to or past f/11.

Unless you're using very fast film, at f11 chances are you're getting camera shake. If the zone you focused on is soft but areas in front or behind are sharp, you have a focus issue. If everything is soft you have a duff example, or you're confusing shake with softness. I'd try a film at 5.6, 400 ASA, daylight, and see if things still look soft.

baachitraka · Oct 6, 2016

Does it really matter? Its a small paint brush to paint street scenes with a little effort.

flavio81 · Oct 6, 2016

bvy said:
I'm putting my Olympus XA on the shelf for a while. After developing a few rolls from this summer, it seems none of the frames are terribly sharp. It could be the rangefinder isn't very accurate, but I don't always rely on it. Often I zone focus at something reasonable (10 feet) stopped down to or past f/11. My point of reference is my Yashica T5 (same as the T4 Super) with autofocus and Zeiss lens. These images are consistently and satisfiably sharp, but I sacrifice a lot of control when I use it. Is it a fair comparison?

Try the Olympus 35RC for a change.
Or my favorite, the Olympus Pen S half frame. No focus issues ever for me!

Poisson Du Jour · Oct 7, 2016

My little XA is still trooping along 30+ years later. Used it today on a half-day walk. Considering my wonky viewing eye, I am viewing beautiful strings of transparencies on the lightbox, all sharp and blur-free (I attach the XA to anything handy using a Gorillapod, often wrapping it around the tripod leg is just-so). Some people may have trouble with, or ignore critical focus using the bright-frame alabada viewfinder. One of my friends long ago used an XA for his bicycle touring publishing work. He never focused the XA carefully, instead shooting his Kodachrome 64 slides hand-held and at f16+ (!) Just about all the images were published in this various books, though they'd earn a FAIL from modern day photographers with an eye for even a modicum of sharpness!

klownshed · Oct 7, 2016

I have two XA-2s. The first one I bought (for 99p!) is beaten to crap. The other, which I bought later is in mint condition and looks like it had never been used.

The photos I take with the minty one are soft and blurry. The photos from the 99p beaten up one are sharp and contrasty.

I think 20 odd years in the cupboard did the 'minty' one's glass no good at all. I may have to find a 'spares or repairs' XA-2 and give the mint one a glass transplant (or more accurately, take one broken camera and one functional but imperfect camera and make two broken cameras with the parts).

bvy · Oct 7, 2016

Not what I wanted to hear, but it could be... camera shake. There's a handy gauge that tells me the shutter speed, and I always favor 250 and faster when I can. So, I don't know. The T5 has shutter lag of half second or more, so that could be saving me with that camera.

blockend · Oct 7, 2016

It's a cloudy day here, so I thought I'd see what ASA was need for 1/250 at f11 outdoors in daylight with sky in the shot. It's 1600 ASA. That's 1/60 sec with 400 ASA film, or 1/15 with 100 ASA. Both will give shake, motion blur or both. 1/250 is the accepted minimum to freeze people walking, and a 35mm lens requires f11 for front to back sharpness, you might get away with f8. The answer is faster film, or push processing if your interest is street or candid photography. Try that before you shelve the camera.

thuggins · Oct 7, 2016

Since you never indicated whether you ever had this camera off the shelf, it is really difficult to determine what may be wrong. Did you have many years of great images and suddenly they went south? Images that are not "terribly sharp" are rarely associated with any Olympus camera, let alone the XA.

It is possible the focus is off, but unlikely as the lens focuses internally. The rangefinder could be off, but as many folks have pointed out over the years a 35mm lens has little use for a rangefinder. It could be camera shake, but this has a characteristic look and should be easily identified. Besides, given the feather light release on the XA shaking does not seem a likely problem.

It's most likely the film or processing. What kind of film did you use? How was it processed? Are you looking at prints or scans? Get a roll of Provia and run it thru the camera. In all probability your not "terribly sharp" problem will go away all by itself.

bvy · Oct 8, 2016

Thanks for all the feedback. On second thought, I'm not sure about the camera shake theory. I could find a few examples where the camera was on a tripod -- and as has been said, it has a distinct look which I recognize.

Here's an example. On the left is the full frame, on the right a 100% crop (from a 1600 dpi raw scan). This was shot in midday sun in LA in July. I usually adjust aperture for the fastest or second fastest shutter speed in a situation like this. The film is Kodak Profoto XL (100) with the camera set to 100.

baachitraka · Oct 8, 2016

XA: 35mm f/2.8

@f/4.0 Hyperfocal distance: 12.3m
Near limit: 6.15m - Far limit; Inf

@f/5.6 Hyperfocal distance: 8.7m
Near limit: 4.35m - Far limit: Inf

@f/8.0 Hyperfocal distance: 6.16m
Near limit: 3.08m - Far limit: Inf

@f/11.0 Hyperfocal distance: 4.37m
Near limit: 2.18m - Far limit: Inf

For me @f/5.6, f/8.0 and f/11.0 are my working apertures, capable of producing sharp negatives if not stunning.

blockend · Oct 8, 2016

bvy said:
Thanks for all the feedback. On second thought, I'm not sure about the camera shake theory. I could find a few examples where the camera was on a tripod -- and as has been said, it has a distinct look which I recognize.

Here's an example. On the left is the full frame, on the right a 100% crop (from a 1600 dpi raw scan). This was shot in midday sun in LA in July. I usually adjust aperture for the fastest or second fastest shutter speed in a situation like this. The film is Kodak Profoto XL (100) with the camera set to 100.

They're certainly less sharp than some 20 x 16" C-type optical prints I own by a US photographer shot on an XA. A number of things come to mind, a dirty back element, bad scanning or a lens stopped all the way down leading to diffraction. The shots aren't soft enough to suggest a lens problem - though that's always a possibility - it just looks sub-optimal. If you're getting much better results from the T5 with same film and scanner, it's clearly an XA issue. What that issue is may take a little detective work.

georg16nik · Oct 8, 2016

The scans are smudgy but could be film/dev/scan issue and not necessarily camera fault.
Film inspection with a magnifying glass and shooting a roll of B&W film like Acros or tmax 100 will reveal the whole story...

bvy said:
Thanks for all the feedback. On second thought, I'm not sure about the camera shake theory. I could find a few examples where the camera was on a tripod -- and as has been said, it has a distinct look which I recognize.

Here's an example. On the left is the full frame, on the right a 100% crop (from a 1600 dpi raw scan). This was shot in midday sun in LA in July. I usually adjust aperture for the fastest or second fastest shutter speed in a situation like this. The film is Kodak Profoto XL (100) with the camera set to 100.

View attachment 164961 View attachment 164962

Prof_Pixel · Oct 8, 2016

I suspect a scan issue. Did you apply any sharpening? Scanning (sampling) is a low pass (blurring) operation and some sharpening is always required.

ic-racer · Oct 8, 2016

...none of the frames are terribly sharp...stopped down to or past f/11...

Physics.

darinwc · Oct 8, 2016

Another thought.. have you looked at the negatives and compared the exposure with the yashica?

Patrick Robert James · Oct 9, 2016

I never thought the XA was all that, and the T4 that I have had since the early 90s isn't that great either. The lens is really contrasty, but that shouldn't be confused with sharp. The small point and shoot that really has impressed me for the moolah is the Olympus Mju II. There are others of course, like the Ricoh GR1 and the Minox 35. For a small mostly manual 35, the Minox blows the XA out of the water.

Jon Buffington · Oct 9, 2016

From http://www.diaxa.com/xa.htm

The Lens - 1:53 Mag lpmm Resolution
centre
edge
2.8 accept 42 good 30
4 good 47 good 32
5.6 v good 59 v good 42
8 excellent 67 excellent 47
11 excellent 67 excellent 53
16 excellent 59 excellent 47
22 good 47 v good 37

So stopped down the lens is good. First guess is scanning issue (if using a flatbed, was the film flat or somewhat curled common for Kodak film? To me it looks like a flatbed scan of 35mm, not typically all that sharp at 100%)). Maybe the lens is out of alignment? Here is an example of the xa stopped down at f11 or thereabouts on kentmere 400 developed in hc110 dil h scanned on a Kodak pakon f135+

As one can see, the lens is plenty sharp.

John Wiegerink · Oct 9, 2016

Patrick Robert James said:
I never thought the XA was all that, and the T4 that I have had since the early 90s isn't that great either. The lens is really contrasty, but that shouldn't be confused with sharp. The small point and shoot that really has impressed me for the moolah is the Olympus Mju II. There are others of course, like the Ricoh GR1 and the Minox 35. For a small mostly manual 35, the Minox blows the XA out of the water.

Well, I've own several Oly XA's and have none now, but I have four Minox 35's if that tells you anything. The Minox might not be 100% reliable(if you have a bad one), but it is a camera with a fantastic lens. When folded up it is very pocket-easy too. The image quality is nothing but first rate. Don't get me wrong, I love the style and handling of the XA, but never thought the image quality was that great.

Shelfing the XA for a while...

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency