Should I ditch my current set of cameras for an Olympus XA?

[thuggins]

Why a 35mm lens with RF is an odd combination? Many RF cameras have lenses with focal length around that.

A 35mm lens has such a large DoF that a rangefinder is hardly needed. This is a much discussed point regarding the XA. The focus scale only has four marks (in feet): 2.8, 4, 8 and infinity. And 8 is shown as the hyperfocal. The XA1 does quite nicely as a fixed focus, with a lens only one stop slower.

The Stylus is also a great little camera, actually smaller than the XA and with a built in flash. It does suffer from the auto-focus curse, though. The program tends toward a large aperture and fast shutter speed, apparently because the designers felt camera shake was a problem. But even with this, it takes some beautiful shots. And the meter has always been spot on with slide film (of course, I've never had meter accuracy issues with any Oly!)

 

[Bingley]

I'll add that I like the XA as a second film body for travel. I'm the original owner of an XA I bought in the early 80s, and it's still going strong. I picked a second one up several years ago as insurance. On vacation travel, I shoot Portra in it and put bw in a Leica. It's great to be able to slip the XA in a pocket when going out to dinner.

The lens is more than good enough. Yes, it vignettes wide open but that's part of its character. stopped down to 5.6 or 8 it's very sharp, with nicely balanced contrast. Maybe not as sharp as a Rollei 35, but with better ergonomics. It's a great little camera.

 

[Neil Souch]

I have an XA and I do use it from time when I have to cut back on taking or carrying gear. I have found it to be superb in the lens department and surprisingly the camera's meter is very good with most lighting conditions. When I'm using the XA this is the only meter I use.

The only problem I have had In 9 years is the foam light seals which have recently dissolved. However, they are easy to replace yourself and this can be expected to eventually happen on a camera of this age.

Personally I wouldn't use the XA as my only camera as I would miss the versatility of interchangeable lenses on say something like a Nikon FM2 or an OM1 - both of which are compact SLRs. But for an affordable quality carry in your pocket fixed lens rangefinder with a good on-board meter it is a hard one to beat.

Neil.

 

[darinwc]

I have two XA's. One that I've used for a roll or two and one that is super clean in its original case. But i have a bazillion cameras.
The XA is capable of good results. I have seen some outstanding prints from the XA and XA2.

The key, like with any camera, is to learn its personality.
And the XA does have personality.
But you are either going to love it or hate it. The rangefinder works using a lever on the bottom. it may be too small for some hands.
The lens vignettes at full aperture but less so at smaller apertures. The shutter release is very shallow and needs all most no pressure. The shutter is extremely quiet, sometimes your not sure if it fires.
If you are looking for a small fun camera that is serious enough for serious photographers, this is it.
Spend some extra money and buy one that is known good.

But if you are serious about getting into film photography, stop messing around with those compacts and get an SLR. Ask around here and I am sure someone will give you a deal on one.

 

[BradleyK]

The XA is always with me. As others have stated, it fits in a pocket (unless you wear "skinny jeans") and can produce nice images. I don't find it very good wide open, but stop it down to a stop or two and you will be very happy with the results.

+1. I trusted mine enough to run Kodachrome through it on more than a few occasions. For a number of years, I never left the house without it. Unfortunately, about four years ago, I dropped the thing and broke it. My eldest nephew, never one to pass up the opportunity to "repurpose" anything electronic, turned it into a taser...

 

[BradS]

The XA is a fine camera but, it is just a camera. The difference between a snap shot and a great photo is the photographer....not the camera. Get what ever camera you like and learn to use it well. More importantly however, learn about composition and light. Ultimately, gear does not matter.

 

[elekm]

The Olympus XA is a fine camera, but I would never want it to be my only camera. But, hey, one of the great things about living in a free society is that we get do do what we want - even if it doesn't seem to make sense to the rest of us.

 

[Spicy]

if they could still be bought new, they would be my favorite camera and i'd have one in every bag i own.

unfortunately, i have 2 of them -- one has a fungussed lens, and the other's VF meter circuit is dead and the RF's vertical alignment is way off (although the contrast is still decent, whereas the fungus-lens one's rangefinder patch is basically unusable). plenty of stories of the electromagnetic shutter buttons going out as well.

they're epic cameras, it's just a shame to see a good portion of them finally succumbing to old age (from the early 80s, that's a pretty great run).

i just wish i could have discovered them and film earlier so as to have gotten more "useful time" with them. such is life in the age of plastic and electronic circuitboards...

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

There are still loads of perfectly useable ones out there.

 

[zanxion72]

XA is a nice little one, but definitely not the only one to have. It is closer to a fine point and shoot one and limits one's creativity quite a bit.
No manual exposure, difficulty in focusing (and in scale focusing due to the tiny numbers that my eyes can no longer clearly see), made me sell mine.
A nice little one, but not the only one to own.

 

[Xmas]

Much to like, however there is a reason why they make both chocolate and vanilla ice cream. Bill Barber

marketing?

 

[perkeleellinen]

I say go for it; it'll be an adventure and if nothing else you'll learn the camera's limitations for yourself. It's not like you can't buy another camera in the future.

 

[Forrest Conifer]

But if you are serious about getting into film photography, stop messing around with those compacts and get an SLR. Ask around here and I am sure someone will give you a deal on one.

I recently purchased a Pentax KX which I've been experimenting with for the past few weeks. Unfortunately, the first roll I ran through it - expired Portra 800 - was woefully underexposed and then totally destroyed by the lab (or lack thereof - Costco) that developed it. The next (Kodak Gold 200) came out better. I have a lot to learn, though.

The XA2 is very easy to use and gives great results. A 35f3.5 lens very forgiving in focusing. The ASA selection provided all the exposure control I ever needed.

But my favorite is actually the XA1. It is the heart of a Trip 35 in the body of an XA. I've gotten some very good shots with mine. And it will continue to work after a nuclear holocaust.

Interesting, I haven't looked into either the XA1 or XA2. Thanks for the thoughts, I'm intrigued...

The XA is a fine camera but, it is just a camera. The difference between a snap shot and a great photo is the photographer....not the camera. Get what ever camera you like and learn to use it well. More importantly however, learn about composition and light. Ultimately, gear does not matter.

That's a very good point as well. I personally am not looking to get an XA because I have any illusion that it will make me a better photographer - I think that's a little like those people who say they can run faster when they're wearing Nikes or Rebooks or whatever. But the XA does seem like a very fun little camera and I'm still hoping to get my hands on one because I like 35mm compacts.

 

[jstout]

like mine

My XA2 has done a good job different times. It's tiny, self-contained, quick to use and it's not scary looking. People seem glad to have their picture taken with my little snappy, and I don't have to make them wait, unless the little flash has to recharge, which can take forever. As an aside, a nicad battery will give the flash a stronger push than other types, from what I've seen. Nicads have brute force, not like the alkaline or ni-mh, just my thoughts. Haven't tried the costly little disposable li-ion, but I believe ni-cad can push harder than any (layman terms).

It's possible to hold filters and things in front of the lens, if it helps. It's tedious, but I have done it. A long time ago, before the age of computers and i-gadgets, and in nice sunny scenic conditions, I had a hard time seeing which chromes came from this camera or from the OM-1n lenses. (maybe just shows how undiscerning I can be)

So, I like mine, but please don't let the word out on these, as I might need to pick up a replacement someday, and I'd hate to see the prices climb.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

My XA2 has done a good job different times. It's tiny, self-contained, quick to use and it's not scary looking. People seem glad to have their picture taken with my little snappy, and I don't have to make them wait, unless the little flash has to recharge, which can take forever. As an aside, a nicad battery will give the flash a stronger push than other types, from what I've seen. Nicads have brute force, not like the alkaline or ni-mh, just my thoughts. Haven't tried the costly little disposable li-ion, but I believe ni-cad can push harder than any (layman terms).

It's possible to hold filters and things in front of the lens, if it helps. It's tedious, but I have done it. A long time ago, before the age of computers and i-gadgets, and in nice sunny scenic conditions, I had a hard time seeing which chromes came from this camera or from the OM-1n lenses. (maybe just shows how undiscerning I can be)

So, I like mine, but please don't let the word out on these, as I might need to pick up a replacement someday, and I'd hate to see the prices climb.

Yes they do, and due to the large currents they can deliver can fry some flashes... they occasionally mention in the instructions not to use Nicads for just this reason (As opposed to keeping the battery manufacturers in business).