Why no digital camera like my Oly XA?

[Cinema]

I really love shooting with my olympus xa. IQ is super high for the size of the camera. biggest issue is the dim rangefinder patch, which makes it mostly a scale focus camera half the time for me. so i'm thinking of selling it and getting the XA2. but the grii/iii also looks like an attractive option, similar sized camera albeit digital. mirrorless cameras are like rf's, they don't have a mirror and can take leaf shutter lenses. what's preventing someone from making a FF digital camera similar to the size of the XA? I'm not talking about smaller apsc cameras like the griii. I feel like it would be a huge hit. is there something about film cameras that make FF easier to produce with a smaller body?

 

[Cholentpot]

I really love shooting with my olympus xa. IQ is super high for the size of the camera. biggest issue is the dim rangefinder patch, which makes it mostly a scale focus camera half the time for me. so i'm thinking of selling it and getting the XA2. but the grii/iii also looks like an attractive option, similar sized camera albeit digital. mirrorless cameras are like rf's, they don't have a mirror and can take leaf shutter lenses. what's preventing someone from making a FF digital camera similar to the size of the XA? I'm not talking about smaller apsc cameras like the griii. I feel like it would be a huge hit. is there something about film cameras that make FF easier to produce with a smaller body?

I'll trade an XA2 for your XA! I have two of them.

FF digi's battery would be half the size of the XA. You'd have to ditch the screen, autofocus and menus. I'd love to see it happen but it's a wish. I'd rather see a viable FF 35mm sensor for SLRs. That's possible these days.

 

[Cinema]

true but it could be an internal battery. with all the processing power, screen and battery life inside my slim new iphone, i can't imagine it's impossible. or just give it an optical vf like the olympus film compacts, with center focus confirmation mark. i think people would definitely pay griiix/x100v prices for that, it's unique enough and the marketing would be easy considering the desire for new/old things now (see: people paying $3500 for m6s and t3s)

 

[Eric Rose]

Dream on. If it's that small people will just use there phone. I love my XA!

 

[Cinema]

good point but it’s not FF. basically i’m saying RICOH OR OLY PLEASE DO A FF GR/XA

 

[Cholentpot]

good point but it’s not FF. basically i’m saying RICOH OR OLY PLEASE DO A FF GR/XA

I'd settle for an APS-C with a viewfinder and a fast 35mm equivalent lens.

 

[250swb]

The problem for me with small digital cameras is that I don't like holding them away from my face to see the screen, it doesn't feel like I'm in-tune with the things I'm photographing. I'm glad I had my XA as backup yesterday when my Yashicamat failed (again), because with a change of mindset from MF to 35mm I felt I could still produce great quality images and save the day. I have a GR1s that makes me feel the same way although I don't always like the 28mm angle, and as a close runner up an Olympus RC35 which technically wins on every front because besides the great lens it doesn't matter if the battery fails.

 

[Chan Tran]

A little bigger than the XA, no rangefinder but AF. The Sony RX1r II is a nice digital. It has full frame sensor like the XA and it has 35mm lens like the XA.

 

[Willy T]

... biggest issue is the dim rangefinder patch, which makes it mostly a scale focus camera half the time ...?

OT, and just in passing: this has solved 'dim rangefinder patch' for me: http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-165.html

 

[reddesert]

A full frame digital camera has a lot of other electronics, processing hardware, buttons/controls, battery, and of course a large LCD screen on the back that make it larger than the smallest 35mm cameras. The film camera off-loads some of the complexity and size of sensor and image-making onto the processing lab, so to speak.

To give an example comparison, a Sony E-mount APS-C camera like the NEX-5 has a body that is about as tall and deep as the XA, and a couple of cm wider. Once you put a lens on it, even a pancake single-focal-length lens, it also gets deeper than the XA. Of course you can ask why a manufacturer doesn't make a APS-C or FF digital camera with a fixed small prime lens, a couple of control wheels, and leaving out all the other stuff. I'm not an expert on the full universe of digital cameras, but I think that's closest to a Fuji X100 or Sony RX-something. So probably the answer is that it doesn't get smaller than those cameras. Also that if manufacturers made them any less-featured, slower smaller lenses, etc, customers would complain and go elsewhere.

Lastly, even if you scale focus an XA, it's still a bit higher spec than an XA2 (a fine camera but only has 3-zone focus, no aperture control, and a lower-spec lens).

 

[Chan Tran]

A full frame digital camera has a lot of other electronics, processing hardware, buttons/controls, battery, and of course a large LCD screen on the back that make it larger than the smallest 35mm cameras. The film camera off-loads some of the complexity and size of sensor and image-making onto the processing lab, so to speak.

To give an example comparison, a Sony E-mount APS-C camera like the NEX-5 has a body that is about as tall and deep as the XA, and a couple of cm wider. Once you put a lens on it, even a pancake single-focal-length lens, it also gets deeper than the XA. Of course you can ask why a manufacturer doesn't make a APS-C or FF digital camera with a fixed small prime lens, a couple of control wheels, and leaving out all the other stuff. I'm not an expert on the full universe of digital cameras, but I think that's closest to a Fuji X100 or Sony RX-something. So probably the answer is that it doesn't get smaller than those cameras. Also that if manufacturers made them any less-featured, slower smaller lenses, etc, customers would complain and go elsewhere.

Lastly, even if you scale focus an XA, it's still a bit higher spec than an XA2 (a fine camera but only has 3-zone focus, no aperture control, and a lower-spec lens).

Many like the XA2 but I definitely prefer the XA even if I have to range focus it because I can choose the aperture.

 

[xkaes]

I've seen plenty of digitals that are similar in size to my XA -- but they always have more features.

I like my Nikon EasyPix 5600. Same size as the XA, uses two AA batteries, and has a 35-105mm zoom with a zooming viewfinder -- in addition to a small rear LED screen. It's designed to be automatic, but exposure, focusing, etc. can be adjusted. It can't match the XA for quality of BLOW-UPS with fine-grain film, but it beats the XA when it comes to features -- and it even does videos.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have several compact digital cameras, all are small sensors, the smallest cropped APS -c frame sensor with fixed lens that comes to mind is the Sigma dp 1 quattro, full frame is the Sony Cyber Shot DSC Rx, but not as small as the XA. Closer in size to a 70s fixed lens rangefinder.

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

I would love a digital XA! I had a Ricoh GR3 for a bit but found it to be too fragile...

 

[Cholentpot]

I've seen plenty of digitals that are similar in size to my XA -- but they always have more features.

I like my Nikon EasyPix 5600. Same size as the XA, uses two AA batteries, and has a 35-105mm zoom with a zooming viewfinder -- in addition to a small rear LED screen. It's designed to be automatic, but exposure, focusing, etc. can be adjusted. It can't match the XA for quality of BLOW-UPS with fine-grain film, but it beats the XA when it comes to features -- and it even does videos.

I don't want all of that though...

 

[xkaes]

I don't want all of that though...

I didn't either, but I got mine at GOODWILL for $3.

 

[Paul Howell]

For a digital camera the size of an XA, no back screen, manual rangefinder, run on 2 AA batteries.

 

[Cholentpot]

I didn't either, but I got mine at GOODWILL for $3.

That's a win there.

 

[grain elevator]

Some more obstacles:
Lenses for digital need to be telecentric, sensors don't do well with rays coming in at oblique angles unless you have specialised micro lenses, which makes it expensive, and not many would want expensive in a very basic camera. The XA lens is so compact because it's the opposite of telecentric.
For FF digital to be much better than smaller formats, the lens needs to be very good and thus likely large even discounting the above.
FF digital needs to be focused very precisely to be any good. Hard to do with a small viewfinder where you can't pinpoint the point it will focus on very well. Sure, back screen... but that can't be very large either if the camera is supposed to be as small as an XA.
IMHO apsc is great for a compact camera like that, IQ likely to be better than film from a super compact camera.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I have a Fuji digital (the XQ-1) with a very nice fast zoom (f1.8 on the wide end), manual controls if you want them, and it's smaller than a pack of cigarettes. It's screen-only for focus and compose, so between that and the small size, the battery is tiny, and only good for about a half day of shooting. So everything is a compromise.

 

[xkaes]

The XQ-1 is very nice, but the price is WAY too high. I could buy 200 Nikon EASYPIX 5600 cameras for the same amount of cash.

 

[mshchem]

Leica M11 35mm Zeiss Biogon f2.8 in black paint, same as an XA

 

[Evergreen States]

Some problems:
1. Fitting both a full frame sensor and a rangefinder and the other digital components into a body the size of an XA isn’t feasible. And even if you were able to, your battery life would be pitiful because the battery would be so so small.
2. A fixed lens compact is a specialized product. There’s no getting around this. 1970s fixed lens compacts were made cheap for the mass market. Zoom lenses were expensive to make and they sucked. But production costs have come down and now the equivalent to a fixed lens compact - when it isn’t just a cell phone - is a Canon or Nikon entry level APS-C DSLR and a couple kit zooms from Best Buy or Costco. The kinds of buyers who were buying Olympus XAs and Canonets when they were new are expecting high megapixels and zoom lenses today that they can shoot their kids’ soccer games and birds when they go camping. I find it hard to believe that a fixed lens compact - let alone one that companies would want to invest with a full frame sensor - would sell in enough volume to be much cheaper than the Ricoh GRIII and X100V are now.
3. The barriers to entry for a new camera company are much higher than they were was during the 1970s. Back in the 1970s you just had to design a box that the film would run through. Today you need precision electronic components. And the fact is, there are very few companies making digital sensors. You have Sony, Tower Jazz and who else? Is Kodak even still making sensors for the consumer market?

The state of the market and technology have changed too much to make an XA with the same size, optical viewfinder and full frame sensor, let alone one that doesn’t cost less than $2000 USD (and nobody is making a fixed lens full frame camera for less than $3000 USD). The ship has sailed.

 

[Cholentpot]

Some problems:
1. Fitting both a full frame sensor and a rangefinder and the other digital components into a body the size of an XA isn’t feasible. And even if you were able to, your battery life would be pitiful because the battery would be so so small.
2. A fixed lens compact is a specialized product. There’s no getting around this. 1970s fixed lens compacts were made cheap for the mass market. Zoom lenses were expensive to make and they sucked. But production costs have come down and now the equivalent to a fixed lens compact - when it isn’t just a cell phone - is a Canon or Nikon entry level APS-C DSLR and a couple kit zooms from Best Buy or Costco. The kinds of buyers who were buying Olympus XAs and Canonets when they were new are expecting high megapixels and zoom lenses today that they can shoot their kids’ soccer games and birds when they go camping. I find it hard to believe that a fixed lens compact - let alone one that companies would want to invest with a full frame sensor - would sell in enough volume to be much cheaper than the Ricoh GRIII and X100V are now.
3. The barriers to entry for a new camera company are much higher than they were was during the 1970s. Back in the 1970s you just had to design a box that the film would run through. Today you need precision electronic components. And the fact is, there are very few companies making digital sensors. You have Sony, Tower Jazz and who else? Is Kodak even still making sensors for the consumer market?

The state of the market and technology have changed too much to make an XA with the same size, optical viewfinder and full frame sensor, let alone one that doesn’t cost less than $2000 USD (and nobody is making a fixed lens full frame camera for less than $3000 USD). The ship has sailed.

So you're saying the tech is holding us back at this point.

I'll wait a few decades and see what it brings. Curved sensors? Glassless lenses? Improved batteries? It'll happen and someone will make a crack at it. I'll be there waiting.

 

[Evergreen States]

So you're saying the tech is holding us back at this point.

That's part of it, but you might notice I gave three detailed reasons. Tech isn't all of it and solving the technical problems alone will not make it happen.

I'll be there waiting.

I wish you the best (I'd love to see something like this too) but I'd pick up an X100 or GR of some kind and not hold your breath. There are pictures to be had out there!