Olympus XA users

[windraider]

Hi any Olympus XA users out there?

I’ve been using an XA for the last 20yrs & have noticed the following:
When focusing at objects between 0.85-2m, resolution of the subjects seem to be soft at apertures lower than f5.6. Particularly at f2.8, subject seems to be out of focus (resolution of background is soft but not as bad as subject). I’ve already checked the rangefinder accuracy by comparing lens distance readouts to measurements made via a measuring tape. The problem is gone and subject is sharp (together with background) at f8.

Anyone have a similar experience? Is this a limitation of the retro-focus len’s short focus throw or is a lens alignment problem?

Additionally when using flash in low light situations (handheld), subjects 1.5-3m away tend to be overexposed & seems out of focus, but background is usually OK.

Also from a user perspective, how would you rate the performance the XA’s lens?
My dad commented that resolution seems soft when compared with his 50/1.4 AIS Nikkor.

Would appreciate any inputs from all users.

[anandi]

Just reviewed a couple of rolls of film shot with an XA after reading your post. Most of my close shots are of kids and when they're not moving and in low light, I do see a little softness, but it's not bad or even unpleasant.

With a flash I've got some nicely focussed and well exposed shots. In fact I'll go further and say better flash pictures than with my SLR/fancy speedlite flash combos (on automatic settings). I found that the XA flash shots weren't overpowering.

Worth noting that I'm referring to pics shot generally with XP2 with a lot of exposure latitude.

Oh yeah, forgot, don't have anything much fancier than a GIII/Minox 35 GL/Canon FD primes lenses/ Yashica T5 (Tessar there) but the XA at f8 and smaller seem to be the sharpest lens I've got. Surprised the heck out of me.

Cheers,
-Amit

[raid]

I like the results I am getting with the XA. I took the XA with me on a long trip to Japan. It was the perfect pocket camera. However, I have to admit that wide open shots are soft looking.

[daniel~]

The XA is an innovative compact design ahead of its time. I think that & its versatility are the main reasons for its cult following. It is not so amazing, however, in terms of optical performance. I can easily name several compact cameras I've used that give sharper pictures. I'll rate its lens good but not outstanding.

The photos ( shot at f/5.6 or wider) are soft with obvious vignette; it doesn't focus close as my AF p&s ; its flash rather primitive. Yes, these are the limitations I have found in XA, but in the mean time, it offers aperture-priority control and rangefinder focusing in such small metal housing. Still a great companion for my photo walks. :)

[DougK]

I have an XA and can't really add much more than has already been said. While I haven't noticed really obvious vignetting in my photos, the lens can be a touch soft at the wider apertures. A fair trade-off for the extreme portability and a true rangefinder in your pocket; in my mind, the perfect vacation camera.

[Sean Chan]

Considering the size of the XA, it's a very good performer even by today's standard.

I use it mainly for street / snap shots and am very happy with it.

Here is a photo taken by my Olympus XA yesterday:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=21210&cat=5462

[rami]

Remember, that DOF is smaller when you focus closer. And XA have one of the worst rangefinder paths I've ever seen. Maybe that is the real problem?

But still: XA is one of the best pocket cameras :-)

[ChrisPlatt]

Indeed compromises were made to achieve the camera's unique capsule design.

I have tried many other similar cameras in all price ranges, but IMO the Olympus
XA offers the best combination of features in a really compact, truly pocketable,
very usable 35mm camera for most purposes.

FWIW I know a professional photographer who sells 11 x 14 exhibition prints
taken with his Olympus XA...

"Excelsior, you fathead!"
-Chris-

[Jordan W.]

Remember, that DOF is smaller when you focus closer. And XA have one of the worst rangefinder paths I've ever seen. Maybe that is the real problem?

I think that this hits the nail on the head... small DOF at wide apertures, a very faint rangefinder patch, and a very short focus throw.

[ChrisPlatt]

An XA always at the ready in a chest pocket
will come home with far more excellent pics
than any Leica safe at home in the closet...

"Excelsior, you fathead!"
-Chris-

[George S.]

All that's been said is true, but don't forget, it wasn't engineered and built to be a posh camera. It was designed (and yes, compromises had to be made) to be affordable to all, a goal which many had considered impossible. The fact that it does perform so well, in such a small, sturdy package 20+ years later, is a testament to its build quality.

[Poptart]

Its lens is sharp enough for the small enlargements I usually make but obviously a highly-corrected, full-size, optimum-element design like the Nikkor will yield much better performance with equivalent good technique. If you are in doubt, compare side by side using slow film and a heavy tripod. Focus on a page of newsprint at several working distances and use a tape measure to check focus.

[Joe Brugger]

The XA is a nice little go-anywhere compact, but metal it ain't. I believe the plastic is called Makrolon or something like that. Don't notice much falloff with mine until it gets down around 2.8, maybe 4.

[ivzhao]

An XA always at the ready in a chest pocket
will come home with far more excellent pics
than any Leica safe at home in the closet...

"Excelsior, you fathead!"
-Chris-

cool photo guys take the risk, and then they die together happily or sadly thereafter, maybe.
so the concept of XA can save your life.

[windraider]

Hi anandi, would be interested in seeing some of your photos for a comparision with the results I'm getting - care to post some online?

Just to add, the XA is an ideal camera for street photography & a performer in good lighting conditions. I'm usually happy with the XA's results from f8 & above. Results wide open is usually ok at distances above 2m.

Still trying to figure out the flash thingy. Maybe I left it on the wrong setting or something, some of my older photos taken with flash seems OK then.

Being my first camera, I'm pretty sentimental over my XA. Was worried that there might be something wrong with the camera, hence my post.

Just reviewed a couple of rolls of film shot with an XA after reading your post. Most of my close shots are of kids and when they're not moving and in low light, I do see a little softness, but it's not bad or even unpleasant.

With a flash I've got some nicely focussed and well exposed shots. In fact I'll go further and say better flash pictures than with my SLR/fancy speedlite flash combos (on automatic settings). I found that the XA flash shots weren't overpowering.

Worth noting that I'm referring to pics shot generally with XP2 with a lot of exposure latitude.

Oh yeah, forgot, don't have anything much fancier than a GIII/Minox 35 GL/Canon FD primes lenses/ Yashica T5 (Tessar there) but the XA at f8 and smaller seem to be the sharpest lens I've got. Surprised the heck out of me.

Cheers,
-Amit

[raid]

Here is a photo taken in a subway station in Japan with the XA.

[Jordan W.]

Here's a self-portrait -- me using my XA. Mine was a generous gift from Jon of www.groundglass.ca. Despite its limitations, I'm having great fun with it. Between it and the Stylus Epic I'm not wanting for carry-around cameras.

[Sean Chan]

Let's start a XA photo gallary thread, shall we?


Oh, here is a nicely priced XA :

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7566374062&ssPageName=ADME:B:SS:UK:1


:D

[richard_l]

For a rangefinder, the XA is probably the most bang for the buck. It has a very nice 35mm lens. For (arguably) the best lens in a camera about the same size as the XA, try the Rollei 35 or 35 S, unless you are allergic to the "limitations" of full manual operation and zone/scale focus (or don't like the 40mm perspective). I use my Rollei 35 interchangeably with my Leica M3, M2, and M6, because the difference in the quality of the images is usually imperceptible.

[windraider]

Found some XA pictures off the net.
DOF looks pretty shallow in these pictures – do you reckon they are taken wide-open?

http://flickr.com/photos/kahsone/61308585/in/pool-olympusxa/
http://flickr.com/photos/84124641@N00/43262526/in/pool-olympusxa/

Can’t seem to get that level of subject sharpness at close focus with my XA wide open.
Maybe there is something wrong with my sample – I’m back to being depressed :-(

[Trius]

Windraider: I wouldn't be depressed. From what I have read of the XA (and I have two of them now, have had 3 in total) I do suspect that there are two factors which lead to differing opinions.

First, there may be some sample variation. I have no knowledge of the manufacturing history of the XA. Given its fairly long life, it may be that there were small changes made along the way.

Second, you may need a CLA. Since the rangefinder base is so short and the patch is difficult to use under certain conditions, it's quite possible that cleaning the viewfinder and even a minor tweaking of the rangefinder would improve things dramatically.

Finally, I find the shape of the camera itself lends itself to minor camera shake that could make the difference. Shooting wide open at minimal distances would make this appear more pronunced, I think.

I agree with potart, who suggested using a tripod and doing some more controlled tests.

Earl

[zuikologist]

Windraider: there is a thread on RFF somewhere showing a cheap (free?) method for improving rangefinder contrast by using a darker patch over the rangefinder, on the viewfinder window. I can't find it - may be someone can help. It might assist a little with focusing the XA.

[anandi]

Windraider,
I don't have a scanner, but I'll try taking shots of the pics with mr digicam old time document style...anybody selling a half-decent film scanner here?

[ray_g]

Windraider: there is a thread on RFF somewhere showing a cheap (free?) method for improving rangefinder contrast by using a darker patch over the rangefinder, on the viewfinder window. I can't find it - may be someone can help. It might assist a little with focusing the XA.

It was basically the same as Rick Oleson's Page (http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-165.html)

[Beniliam]

Hi guys

I trade the Rollei 35 SE for one Xa with other member of RFF.
I only make 1 roll. I have to say that the camera is good for carry all the day with her. The rangefinder is dim, I put put the Olesson´s solution for contrast the RF. Have a nice meter, is very very quiet. The lens is good. Im dont understand much in terms of resolutions, aberrations... But compared with the Canonet QL GII 17 is less contrast wide open.

My Canonet, I dont know others, have a very nice lens. I read in some post, people talk about the quality of the Rangefinders of the 70´s. Always have good words for the Olympus and the Yashicas... I read some Brian S. answer talk about the different Canonet that he have, and the different lens quality that have his Canonet. For me is important the metering of one camera. Both, Canonet and Olympus Xa have a very good meters even for this time. I only make B/W.

I want to question you: I read that one of the characteristic of the uncoated Leica lens (and the most of that period) had that are mid - low contrast. I imagine that not all the lens of that period have 100 lines/mm in the resolution test, therefore the image appearance is similar to the characteristics that described for the XA lens, soft, but when you close 2 - 3 stop, better in all... ? I know that the Olympus lens is more modern design, have coated surface...

I put 4 photos taken with this camera. ;)

[Poptart]

The only thing I know about the uncoated lenses is that they have a higher flare level, which is bad for most photos but can help in available light situations by spilling more light into a scene, (almost like pre-flashing the film)--according to Schwalberg.

[Beniliam]

Thanks for your answer Poptart.

[Trius]

Here are two shots, the first made with M2/DR Summicron, the second with an XA. No exposure information given, so it may not be informative to this discussion.

http://www.geebeephoto.com/2005/05210.htm
http://www.geebeephoto.com/2005/05211.htm

[richard_l]

Here are two shots, the first made with M2/DR Summicron, the second with an XA. No exposure information given, so it may not be informative to this discussion.You can see the corner light falloff in the XA shot, particularly in the top corners. The DR shot is crisper and overall just more pleasant to look at, IMO. (Very nice shot!) The XA image is not bad at all, but it is clearly in a different league.

I don't think it is fair to draw conclusions from a single example, but these images support my impression of the XA (based on using one for about 14 years). It is a little mushy and can exhibit light falloff (not too bad, but enough to be annoying at times).

[windraider]

While I’ve already tested the rf accuracy of my XA using measuring tape, I agree that I find it difficult to focus using the rf especially in dim lighting. I’ve often been unconvinced with the indicated distance readouts when using the rf, sometimes it shows 3m when subject is less than 1.5m! This probably means even if there is nothing wrong with my XA, I’ll probably have to get use to zone focusing and stopping down to f8 for good results.

As advised by a few, I’m going to run some more test shots using a measuring tape & tripod before I decide whether to send it for servicing. Anyway here are a few of my previous test shots:
First 2 shots are focused on the chair, first at f2.8 the other at f8.
Second shot is f2.8 but focused beyond 1.5m.

[Trius]

Which chair were you focusing on? The near chair is not sharp in either shot. All of the photos seem to be focused further back. Pending the results of further tests, I'd say it needs a CLA.

Earl

[windraider]

Yup was focusing on near chair.
This was the shot that got me questioning whether there was a lens alignment problem with my XA. But with my previous experience on how inaccurate my rf focusing is, I thought I do better confirm it with a tape & tripod test.

My other thoughts wrt richard_l's comments:
- XA's lens doesn't seem to take flare & high contrast situations very well. Highlights tend to white out even for shots focused at infinity and stopped down to f8 or smaller.
- lens doesn't seem to resolve fine details of distant subjects very well, resolution seemed a bit smooth (mushy?).
- don’t really see the light fall off unless wide-open and against a white wall.

But I suppose the character of the lens is part of the XA’s charm.
Photos seem to have an artistic, classical old-world feel.
The photos I take of small children(when focus is not totally off) in bright lighting conditions & colorful backgrounds usually have a dream like quality.
Resolution and contrast tend to be better in subdued lighting (if I don’t shake the camera).
Ironically the XA is my favorite choice for night photography. Stopped down to f8, braced against a small tripod & using the self-timer, results are stunning.

[windraider]

Just an update.
I did a tape & tripod test which confirmed that the focus of the XA was off.
Sent it for a CLA and the technician told me the focus was off by as much as 1.5m!
Suspected that this was caused when the camera had its film transport mechanism repaired 2 yrs ago. Apparently the previous technician didn't align the lense group properly then.
Anyway now that the camera has been calibrated, focus is spot on and results, while not leica or nikkor quality, are great. :) Check out the photos below taken at f2.8.