X100 and Oly XA comparison photo?

[whtchocla7e]

Does any of you good souls on here have both of these cameras? Would you be willing to snap a comparison image?

I know the X100 must be a bit larger and is nearly 2x heavier but I'd like to judge with my own eyes.

Much appreciated. :eek:

[gavinlg]

I have the two and the XA is much smaller. The XA is tiny compared to about anything really... I would take a picture for you but I'm currently interstate and only have the x100 with me...

The x100 is small enough to be truly portable - I can have it hanging off my shoulder all day and not even notice it's weight or size - any smaller and it wouldnt handle well.
It's about the same size or slightly smaller than a leica M as per this picture - http://www.flickr.com/photos/nokton/5494289480/lightbox/

[kbg32]

The XA is roughly the size of a pack of cigarettes and could fit inside.

[longtime_lurker]

While I don't have an x100 to compare to, I did just pick up an x10 and happen to have taken some photos of it next to my XA (and CL and D90). Sorry that it's not what you're looking for, but I thought that it might be helpful. The XA is really, really tiny:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffcantle/6569281635/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffcantle/6569278651/in/photostream/

[NickTrop]

The XA is smaller, "full frame", and truly (comfortably) pocketable. No camera that doesn't have either a retractable lens or a clam shell design like the XA is truly pocketable - regarless of size, at least not comfortably. This is why, while I'm sure the X100 is a fine camera, I would never consider it for purchase and why I would take any of the compact APS-C DSLRs by Nikon, Pentax, or Canon (etc) over the X100. They're a much better bang for the buck, and take other lenses/focal lengths. For me, a nice fast 35mm prime (50mm), an extra charged battery, a UV filter to protect the lens (optional), lens cleaning kit (in case of emergency), and an inexpensive "sling bag" is the way to go for traveling light...

The X100 is a very good deal for a fast/excellent 35mm focal length attached to a very good "portable" camera. If I didn't prefer 50mm (which is what I shoot with 90% of the time...), and shot with a 35mm 90% of the time instead - I'd probably be saving my pennies for an X100. NOT knocking this camera. But I think people who are seeking "pocketability" in any camera where the lens juts out - even a pancake lens, will likely find it doesn't suit their needs.

XA - an excellent choice for a "full frame" film camera "in your pocket"...
Compact DSLR + prime + small sling bag = best "bang for the buck" travel light set-up for higher quality shots.
X100 - excellent small camera (but not pocketable) with a wicked f2/35mm lens, a good deal for an expensive optic with a pretty decent body permanently attached.
Any "compact, pocketable superzoom" with a minimum 10X zoom + a Flip Bak attached to LCD - best pocketable "carry with you anywhere" camera set-up. (An underrated tool and a "must have" imo).


http://www.rythercamera.com/catalog/images/2GO%2010.jpg

[Nelson Tan]

Lucky you... I've both the X100 and XA, so here you go!

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwsiq2KICl1r8z82oo1_500.jpg

[whtchocla7e]

Much thanks to all of you guys who posted the pics and replied.
Surprisingly, the X10 doesn't seem much larger than the XA but the X100 does, not counting the lenses.

To me, the most important factor in a camera these days is the sensor-to-body size ratio. The XA is a perfect 10 in this respect. It can be carried Everywhere.
I dislike my DSLRs because they have tiny aps-c sensors, completely disproportionate to their fat bodies. Lens selection means little to me (I'm happy with a long, standard and wide primes)

So, the X100 is the closest thing to the XA in the digital world. Sure it could be smaller and I could live with a plastic body but there are no other alternatives..

Maybe.. just maybe.. there will be another surprise from Fuji next month.

[yossarian123]

Don't forget about the Oly mju-II. It's only slightly bigger than an XA. You lose the rangefinder but gain autofocus. Lenses are pretty much even, both are spectacular for the size. I love the whole Olympus lineup - I've got 3 XAs, an XA2, mju-II, mju, and an Epic Zoom 80.

[hausen]

Maybe have a look at a Retina IIa if you want a pocketable rf. Got mine for about $75. Schnieder lens is amazing and they a darlings to look at and hold. Taking my IIIc out today with X100 and Xpan. Also don't understand what the need is to put X100 in pocket, I wear mine like jewelry on leicagoodies diagonal strap.

[yossarian123]

Lest I forget, another really pocketable RF is a voigtlander vitessa L.

[bhop73]

...
So, the X100 is the closest thing to the XA in the digital world. Sure it could be smaller and I could live with a plastic body but there are no other alternatives..

I don't get this impression at all. X100 isn't really anything like the XA IMO.I think the size comparison pic above doesn't really do the real size difference justice.

I also have both and the XA can fit in my pants pocket if I want it to. It's not only more narrow from the front view, but it's thinner. The protruding lens (especially if you've got the hood) and bigger size of the X100 can't fit in most pockets. If you have a Leica M, it's really around the same size as one of those. Imagine carrying that around and you've got the gist of it.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6014/6201963665_8fa0afded6_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bhop73/6201963665/)
My Babies (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bhop73/6201963665/) by bhop (http://www.flickr.com/people/bhop73/), on Flickr

[stompyq]

I don't get this impression at all. X100 isn't really anything like the XA IMO.I think the size comparison pic above doesn't really do the real size difference justice.

I also have both and the XA can fit in my pants pocket if I want it to. It's not only more narrow from the front view, but it's thinner. The protruding lens (especially if you've got the hood) and bigger size of the X100 can't fit in most pockets. If you have a Leica M, it's really around the same size as one of those. Imagine carrying that around and you've got the gist of it.

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6014/6201963665_8fa0afded6_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bhop73/6201963665/)
My Babies (http://www.flickr.com/photos/bhop73/6201963665/) by bhop (http://www.flickr.com/people/bhop73/), on Flickr

+1

I have a XA and owned a X100 for a while. The biggest problem with the XA/X100 comparison is the protruding lens on the X100. The XA will fit in a jeans pocket (unless you wear those skinny ones....... please no...:bang:). I found the X100 and leica M4 comparable in size minus the extra weight of the leica

[jsrockit]

It's true, the X100 is closer to a M than a XA. There is no digital equivilent to the XA yet. Small sensor cameras are the only pocket cams so far in digital. The Olympus EPM1 is the closest m4/3, but the lens is still the issue.

[astrosecret]

The x100 is just a tab bigger lengthwise than the Leica CL and thinner. I'm looking at them side by side right now :) I would say the CL is nearly the same size and comparable, and the CL certainly sticks out more with even the 40mm

[staal571]

I have bought 2 weeks ago an Minolta CLE Rangfinder with the Minolta M Rokker 40 mm 1.2.
I use it next to my Fuji X100 , and love both.

Peter

[Benjamin Oliver]

Olympus XA with A11 flash. I use both similarly.


http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7177/6867350539_b8313d2c41_z.jpg