PDA

View Full Version : How have I missed this for so long


.hardware
01-15-2015, 19:49
Hey everyone,

So ive been looking for a new camera for a few weeks while I try to decide what I want to shoot with next, when I fell upon this funny looking thing called an olympus xa! What a strange thing I thought but was intriged. After seeing the results it can produce I find myself thinking about it more and more! so obviously i have decided I need one.

What is a reasonable price to pay for one these days? I have heard the myths that they can be found for 10$ at flea markets but i have also seen them posted on the bay for over 100$!

If anyone has one or knows anyone selling at and acceptable price please forward them on to me!

Thanks for all the help, I cant wait to join the xa family

Noll
01-15-2015, 19:57
I haven't looked for them much recently but I think $75 give or take 20 for overall condition is about fair.

lynnb
01-15-2015, 19:57
KEH have BGN (bargain) XAs at the moment for $59-$79 https://www.keh.com/search/list?s=olympus+XA. You might find better pickings in the RFF Classifieds (if you're prepared to wait until one surfaces) or on eBay.

I found mine for $5 at a thrift store, but that's rare.

shadowfox
01-16-2015, 08:10
Speaking as one (formerly), I think photographers who started in the digital age, are missing a whole lot of neat things when they chose to ignore film photography today.

:D

Solinar
01-17-2015, 04:58
Speaking as one (formerly), I think photographers who started in the digital age, are missing a whole lot of neat things when they chose to ignore film photography today.

:D


At university where I work, I'm surrounded by millennials. I tell them an Olympus XA is a $75.00, 12 megapixel camera , which uses a a full frame 35mm sensor, and best of all it fits comfortably into a pants pocket.

You may quibble about the number of megapixels - but the XA is easily equivalent to many of today's compact digital shooters with a fixed lens.

Best Regards,

ZeissFan
01-17-2015, 05:56
I bought one for $3 at a church sale. It's a good camera. It has a sluggish meter needle.

I replaced the foam seals, and it works fine.

You should always use the wrist strap, because the body is too smooth.

There are times when I think the camera is too small to use quickly. Because it has a rangefinder, you always feel a need to use the rangefinder when, in fact, you probably could get away with scale focusing the camera most of the time.

Joe Vitessa
01-17-2015, 06:05
I've got one I'd be willing to part with inexpensively. Shoot me a PM.

Cheers,
Joe

.hardware
01-17-2015, 14:35
Awesome! It looks like I may have put my hand on one! i will let you know how it goes.

Thanks for all the help guys,

Tijmendal
01-17-2015, 14:58
I refuse to pay more than 25€ for them. Less for an XA2. I absolutely love those camera's.

shadowfox
01-18-2015, 05:10
At university where I work, I'm surrounded by millennials. I tell them an Olympus XA is a $75.00, 12 megapixel camera , which uses a a full frame 35mm sensor, and best of all it fits comfortably into a pants pocket.

You may quibble about the number of megapixels - but the XA is easily equivalent to many of today's compact digital shooters with a fixed lens.

Best Regards,

Absolutely.
I still marvel at the fact that with today's digital technology, they still can't make a fixed lens full-frame digital the size of Olympus XA.

For example a Sony RX1 (the closest I can think of) would look ridiculous next to the XA.

Solinar
01-18-2015, 07:56
Absolutely.
I still marvel at the fact that with today's digital technology, they still can't make a fixed lens full-frame digital the size of Olympus XA.

For example a Sony RX1 (the closest I can think of) would look ridiculous next to the XA.

The Ricoh GR - which uses an APC sized sensor and is less than $600 - would definitely be all that I need. It is only an 1" longer than the XA.

I was unaware of the existence of the Cyber-shot DSC-RX1. Wow, what a camera and that price tag! I wonder what just the 35/2 Sonnar lens is worth. Definitely not a camera for someone in the market for 25 Euro XA.

Best Regards,

David Hughes
01-18-2015, 09:24
I refuse to pay more than 25 for them. Less for an XA2. I absolutely love those camera's.

Hush! People will read this and I'll stop finding them (XA2's) for pennies. (My last cost 49 pennies; I don't know what that is in Euros.) The Cosina CX-2 and Olympus mju-I I got with them for the same price were pretty good bargains, too.

Regards, David

tbhv55
01-18-2015, 09:38
Absolutely.
I still marvel at the fact that with today's digital technology, they still can't make a fixed lens full-frame digital the size of Olympus XA.

For example a Sony RX1 (the closest I can think of) would look ridiculous next to the XA.

+1 on this... I just wish that Olympus (or someone... anyone?!!) would do this. If someone managed to produce a well-implemented full-frame XA Digital, I'd probably sell all my other gear (or almost all of it ;)), and become one of their first customers!

The XA was a masterful piece of design, but I struggle to think of a reason why it couldn't be produced in digital form, when one considers all of the technology available today... 37 years later!:(

David Hughes
01-18-2015, 09:47
I'll second that too. There's just nothing I've seen in the digital line that's matching the small/top of the range P&S's of the film world.

Regards, David

tbhv55
01-20-2015, 00:26
There's just nothing I've seen in the digital line that's matching the small/top of the range P&S's of the film world.

Indeed... as impressive as the Sony RX100 line and the Panasonic LX100 are, it would be great to see an almost exact XA copy in digital format, with the same lens, same clamshell-style body, a full-frame sensor where the pressure plate would have been... and with the electronics filling the gaps where the film canister and spool were (obviously!:rolleyes:). Whilst I don't have the expertise to judge whether the necessary electronics would actually fit into that space, the size of the RX100 would seem to imply that it should be possible - especially since the RX100 also accommodates a collapsible zoom lens in its tiny body.

Apologies to the OP for taking this thread off at something of a tangent, but the driving factor is simply enthusiasm for the XA...!:)

nongfuspring
01-20-2015, 01:29
... the size of the RX100 would seem to imply that it should be possible - especially since the RX100 also accommodates a collapsible zoom lens in its tiny body.

Maybe the better comparison would be the RX1 with a full frame sensor, the RX100 has a teency wee one (although very capable). There are also Sony patents for a full frame NEX sized camera, which is a bit smaller than even the RX1 - so maybe it's nearly there! I'd love to see a pocket digital camera with an OVF, even just a squinty one. Back in the early 2000s it seemed like ALL of the compact digital cameras had OVFs, what ever happened to that?

The XA is a really neat camera, somehow I've resisted picking one up for a while now but it's definitely on the horizon I think. BTW, to those that have used them, how robust are they and is the film advance reliable?

tbhv55
01-20-2015, 02:00
I'd love to see a pocket digital camera with an OVF, even just a squinty one. Back in the early 2000s it seemed like ALL of the compact digital cameras had OVFs, what ever happened to that?


I agree - whatever DID happen to that? :(


The XA is a really neat camera, somehow I've resisted picking one up for a while now but it's definitely on the horizon I think. BTW, to those that have used them, how robust are they and is the film advance reliable?

I've owned an XA and an XA2 for about five years, but I haven't used them as much as I should have. Despite the fact that I like the results from film, the convenience of digital is a powerful draw.

FWIW, my XA has never exhibited any kind of problem, but the XA2 shutter release can be a little temperamental.

David Hughes
01-20-2015, 08:28
My experience was the opposite. The XA (bought when they first appeared) was a little fragile and went back twice for the RF to be sorted out. It cost a fortune to repair and I bought a new XA2 when they appeared. I've had one of each almost since then and prefer the XA but the XA2 is more practical and gets more film through it. Plus they cost pennies and people don't start bidding wars on them on bay.

The XA1, XA3 and XA4 are also nice. Just don't expect the XA3 and XA4 to come cheaply.

And if anyone has an XA4 instruction book they don't want...

Regards, David


PS (Edit) I've a photo from the XA2 in "Churches" in W/NW Words no Words. (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=62) post No 317 to show it off.

Solinar
01-20-2015, 10:31
.........

The XA is a really neat camera, somehow I've resisted picking one up for a while now but it's definitely on the horizon I think. BTW, to those that have used them, how robust are they and is the film advance reliable?

For its current price range for Oly XA-2 , I can't say that its robustness is all that troubling.

With regards to XA-2 it takes the "Focus and Shoot" baton formerly carried by the Oly Trip 35. Both cameras out perform their purchase price - but the XA2 won't feel as robust as the older Trip 35 .

*****************************

Likewise, compared to the Oly 35RC - the XA does not leave me with impression of being robust.

I've owned my XA for 15 years - the film advance survived, but the dust cover for the RF became sticky at some point. It was D.I.Y. fix.


Best Regards,

Rodchenko
01-20-2015, 12:20
I'd be using my XA all the time if it didn't have the famous dodgy shutter button (first in the queue to the menders). And the vignetting can be a bit off-putting.

Solinar
01-20-2015, 13:20
I'd be using my XA all the time if it didn't have the famous dodgy shutter button (first in the queue to the menders). And the vignetting can be a bit off-putting.

Another D.I.Y. fix, see the link below.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=137072

Even if you fail miserably - it wasn't the world's most expensive camera.

Best Regards,

tbhv55
01-20-2015, 13:44
PS (Edit) I've a photo from the XA2 in "Churches" in W/NW Words no Words. (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=62) post No 317 to show it off.

Nice... your XA2 shot appears to be a great deal clearer than anything I've had from mine. I suspect that there may be something slightly amiss with my XA2.:(

David Hughes
01-20-2015, 14:27
Thanks, I've always been fond of that little camera and often wonder if I was especially lucky with it. Probably luck plays a bigger part than we realise with old, second-hand cameras. Luckily they are dirt cheap and fairly easy to find...

Regards, David

shadowfox
01-20-2015, 16:33
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/104/291241297_3b312db7c8.jpg

julio1fer
01-24-2015, 06:27
Indeed the Pen D series (although half frame) is another marvel!

For the OP: consider an XA2 as well. I have extensively used both XA and XA2. In 99% of the subjects you do not really need the rangefinder. The XA2 gives excellent sharpness.

Of course the XA is the iconic one.