PDA

View Full Version : XA Lens Quality?


mh2000
08-15-2008, 19:42
I bought my XA new in 1980... it's a love/hate affair for me.

gavinlg
08-15-2008, 21:01
I've found it's always decently sharp... Only thing is I can never keep one working for more than about 5 rolls. I've gone through 3 and each one has stuffed up prematurely. I want so badly to have a decent working one because I really like them.

ClaremontPhoto
08-16-2008, 02:49
Wasn't it Bailey who said in the famous tv ad (the George Cole / Arthur Daley one) "It's a Zuiko lens, so of course it's good."

petronius
08-16-2008, 03:56
(OT mode on) I never heard a definition of "sharp"! This reminds me of the question whether photography is art or not. (OT mode off) The question for me is, whether I´m satisfied with the overall quality of a lens and for the XA-lens my answer is yes, at all apertures and in BW and color.

nightfly
08-16-2008, 04:02
Sharpness isn't something that I obsess over but the thing that turned me against my XA and XA4 was terrible lens flare. I can deal with the soft corners but the lens flare and especially when you get the full on hexagonal flare (I could live with it if it was at least round) ruined too many shots for me. I never get this with other cameras and I very rarely use a lens hood.

alien8
08-16-2008, 05:34
That's funny, i haven't had much flare with the xa - no worse than other cameras. And the shot you posted looks to me like a classic flare inducing shot (sun hitting the front element directly). I doubt many compacts would hold up much better in such a situation.

ferider
08-16-2008, 05:40
A good XA has more than 60 l/mm (f4 and up).

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/195931648_RekMk-L.jpg

Gives original highlights though, with the square aperture.

Roland.

gmail.com
08-16-2008, 06:09
Wasn't it Bailey who said in the famous tv ad (the George Cole / Arthur Daley one) "It's a Zuiko lens, so of course it's good."

It was in the the ad for the Olympus Trip 35:

"-Its one of the best lenses in the world, they use it on the OM series."

Windscale
08-16-2008, 07:32
But on the Zuiko lenses, didn't Bailey say "I use it when I am not taking pictures"!!!
Didn't he do ads for the Trip, the XA and the OM10 only. Were there other models?

Lichfield also had a go, didn't he?

I am getting old.

Bingley
08-16-2008, 07:48
I'm the original owner of my XA. For about 10 years, it was my only camera. I've always found the lens to be a good performer. Here are some recent shots:

Stopped down, about f.11:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3027/2582599458_cf03bb7a2c.jpg

About f.4 (slight crop):

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3035/2338686947_cafe8d4975.jpg

Wide open (slight crop):

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3166/2582599158_de674fecc4.jpg

JeffGreene
08-16-2008, 12:43
I'm the original with mine as well. I'm very happy with it, and have put hundreds of rolls through it with no problem.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/144/326837720_ffd1cb3ad3.jpg

raid
08-16-2008, 13:11
The XA is not meant to be used wide open all the time.
I use it at 5.6-11 most of the time.
If needed, I get nice looking images back at 2.8.

alien8
08-16-2008, 16:46
The XA is not meant to be used wide open all the time.
I use it at 5.6-11 most of the time.
If needed, I get nice looking images back at 2.8.

Yeah, I think there's a reason f/5.6 is highlighted in orange... as if Olympus is trying to encourage people to use it when they can.

Solinar
08-16-2008, 17:10
The reason f/5.6 is highlighted in orange is to use the zone focusing mark at 8 feet for snap shots.;)

mh2000
08-16-2008, 17:32
yeah, but I also treated it as go beneath me with caution...

the reason I posted this was to get a gauge on how others (other than those posting fan sites for the camera etc.) found the sharpness of this lens since more often than I like the camera returned images that I thought were distractingly soft (and I don't think of myself as a "sharpness freak" by any stretch of the imagination since I shoot mainly cheap old stuff).

For a long time I've wondered if I got one of those "soft copies" or if others just don't mind the softness... anyway, thanks all, I'm shooting the camera currently and I'll see what the newest results come back like... have owned the camera since new and was always on the fence with it... but love love love the size and design.

raid
08-16-2008, 18:00
I find that holding the little camera steady is harder than a full sized camera. This could be one of the reasons why wide open images can appear rather soft with the XA. Test it wide open on a tripod.

alien8
08-16-2008, 18:07
The reason f/5.6 is highlighted in orange is to use the zone focusing mark at 8 feet for snap shots.;)

Interesting. So, what zone is in focus when you set the focus tab to 8 ft (it's 3 metres on my version) and the aperture to f/5.6? Is it 8ft to infinity? I usually like to get closer than 8 ft, so I'm not sure how useful that would be for me.

Is there a pdf manual for this camera out there? Guess I should google it...

Solinar
08-16-2008, 18:30
My guess is that the subject need to be standing 6 to 12 feet from the camera to be in acceptable focus for a snap shot sized print when the lens is set to the highlighted 8 foot mark.

3 meters is 10 feet - so your mileage may very.

Raid gets the 64,000 dollar prize - camera shake can be a bugger with the XA - especially when it wanders into the slow shutter speed zone.

mh2000
08-16-2008, 20:47
I used a small tripod all the time so that isn't the problem... also, my Minox GL shots are way way sharper and the Minox holds much more awkwardly than the XA.

Yeah, there is a pdf manual somewhere and it has DOF table... but at 8' and f5.6 DOF is ~6.25-11" ... which is why I never shoot in that mode... I can guess better than that (hence I shoot the Minox more often... plus the Minox takes an actual bounce flash for when I need flash).

well... as I said, I love the design of the XA and am trying to be conscience of the lack of sharpness and shoot subjects that don't rely on a super sharp less...

rogue_designer
08-16-2008, 21:27
From a sharpness standpoint, my XA lens has performed every bit as well as my Minox GL and Rollei 35 (tessar models). And the option of the rangefinder - rather than just zone focus, is nice for when I don't feel like guessing...

Perhaps yours is in need of adjustment?

conradyiu
08-16-2008, 21:27
Vignetting is a problem to me but XA & XA4 still my favourites.
What kind of film you use for color and B&W?

shadowfox
08-16-2008, 21:58
XA is one reason I still use film. Once in a while, the results from it make me scratch my head as to why I bother having other cameras...

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/308429306_82b986427a_o.jpg

Love the vignetting... most of the time :p

btgc
08-16-2008, 22:50
I wondered if downsized pictures are showing sharpness at all? I hate dealing with crops, and don't engage with them at all.

For pure interest I downsized two pictures and yes, even at small web-suited size sharpness can be seen.

Color pic is from Konica's single speed POP (ISO200) - especially chose rather simple camera and b/w - from XA2 (ISO400).

I haven't before compared sharpness side by side, though there is difference from XA shots. So I can justify you XA owners for praising that little camera.
Till now I haven't run into adequately priced one, so I'm out of league and this days I'm kind of cooled down in regard of new gear. But I never say never ;)

Dave Wilkinson
08-17-2008, 05:47
I find that holding the little camera steady is harder than a full sized camera. This could be one of the reasons why wide open images can appear rather soft with the XA. Test it wide open on a tripod.

I agree, Raid, - but it's a great little pocket camera. Mine has largely been replaced by a .....gulp!....digicam, these days, so I'll be looking for a new home for it shortly :(

Dave.

Dave Wilkinson
08-17-2008, 06:09
My XA has almost been replaced by a Nikon P5100 as a go-everywhere pocket camera, but going slightly off topic,-I keep getting bouts of gas for the Nikon 35TI (considerably more expensive than XA!)..and wonder if image quallity is an improvement on the XA?
Dave.

btgc
08-17-2008, 08:15
And yes, XA reminds me very much Pentax PC35AF, in terms of picture.

raid
08-17-2008, 09:03
I often use the Minox GT and the Olympus XA side by side. Both cameras have sharp lenses, and I have not discovered a clear advantage of the GT over the XA.

kuzano
08-18-2008, 18:22
I find that holding the little camera steady is harder than a full sized camera. This could be one of the reasons why wide open images can appear rather soft with the XA. Test it wide open on a tripod.

Here in Beerfart NB, we use a lot of duct tape. In fact Beerfart uses more rolls per capita, per year than any other community in the USA.

It's not uncommon to find me in the crowd at the annual "Corn Shuckin and Hog Callin Festival" parade, taping my XA to sign posts along the parade route to get those memorable shots.

But once you anchor that lil sucker down, the lens delivers on the goods. Good as anything anybody else in Beerfart owns. And wide open that little bit of subject-containing vignette in the corners is JUST right!

Lilserenity
08-21-2008, 10:20
I've always found my XA to be acceptably sharp at f/2.8, in fact I find it hard to fault except for the slightly faint in broad daylight rangefinder patch.

DavidC
08-24-2008, 06:22
My XA has pretty much outlived its useful life of 20 plus years. I am beginning to get irritated by the difficult to see rangefinder patch and the hair trigger shutter. But if you need a small camera that takes film and can still pack a punch in the picture dept. then the XA can still come in handly. In particular if you are contemplating a long hike on the Great Wall of China. Your big rfdrs will become a real pain and you will wish you had your XA instead.

caperunner
08-26-2008, 15:29
BTGC.. Great photo! Whereabouts did you take this one?

btgc
08-26-2008, 22:25
Thanks, caperunner! With kindergarten kids celebrated ancient fairy Ūsiņi - dedicated to Sun and Ūsiņš who manifested Sun in old times, also served as protector of horses. Also had some dancing and games supplemented by live music. Geographically this happens in Latvia.

Hope not obscuring original XA topic too much...

caperunner
08-27-2008, 03:02
Not obscuring XA topic at all. I play the GHB - great highland bagpipes and this pic caught my eye. What pipes are these?
Definitely a Celtic scene with fiddle, drums and pipes, or even medieval. This is why I liked your pic. Haven't I seen this scene on a woodcut before?
Back to XA good little camera...

btgc
08-28-2008, 06:33
That could be Irish bagpipes. Truly speaking, I don't know much of them...Once I tried to play; this is good work for lung and relaxation for mind.
XA2 also is good palm-sized camera :)

tan131
08-28-2008, 09:11
The XA has allowed me to shoot some pictures which I had never shot before mainly for two factors, its size (which I ended up carrying everywhere) and its discreet looks (which allowed me to take shots without drawing attention). As for the lens quality, its as good as any top notch camera of its time :)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157606995532022/

iceman
08-30-2008, 00:33
i find it acceptably sharp at all fstops, but i rarely open it wide though.

my only gripe about the XA is the RF patch. both of mine has faded quite a bit so i dont bother with focusing as much now. just use hyperfocal and enjoy. :)

KenD
08-30-2008, 04:16
On mine the lens is a lot sharper than the focusing capacity of the dim rangefinder patch :o)

KenD

racoll
09-20-2008, 09:44
And yes, XA reminds me very much Pentax PC35AF, in terms of picture.

I wish my PC35AF, either one of them, took pictures that looked as good as those from my XA, but they just don't quite get there. Close, but not quite. It's a great camera, the PC35AF, another great design that I like just as much as the XA, but I love the results from the XA a lot better. In response to the original question, mine is always sharp and I'm always impressed by the pictures I get from the XA. Once in a fit of stupidity, I sold my 3 XAs, my XA2, and my XA1. That's when I realized how much that camera means to me, so I had to get another and will never part with it again.

Andy

Moto Mark
09-30-2008, 13:18
Oh the XA! It's been a long time since I had mine but to this day it was one of the best pocket size cameras I've ever used. I never had a problem with the quality of the lens and even wide open the photos were just magic.

All this XA talk is making me want to fire up eBay and have a look :)

rovnguy
09-30-2008, 14:12
I have 5. They all seem to work quite nicely for me.

gnarayan
09-30-2008, 14:14
I finally traded my XA this past weekend at PHSNE Photographica show for a motor winder for my OMs. One thing I rarely used for another thing I probably will rarely use. Cute little thing but never quite did it for me. Yes it was small but might I was always stopping it down since the VF and RF were useless and in that case might as well just use a digital compact.

Moto Mark
09-30-2008, 14:43
I have 5. Come over to my house and I'll give you one. They all seem to work quite nicely for me.

I might have to take you up on that:D At least that will give me an excuse to go back to San Diego, one of me all time favorite cities.

kuzano
09-30-2008, 21:21
I agree, Raid, - but it's a great little pocket camera. Mine has largely been replaced by a .....gulp!....digicam, these days, so I'll be looking for a new home for it shortly :(

Dave.

I too will be looking for a home for my digicam and starting to carry the XA again, or one of my XA2's. I wish the digicam could upstage either of them, but I guess it's a $500 lesson I just had to learn.

Welcome back when you sell your digicam. In my case the $ loss was harsh, but warranted by the image quality of my XA

mh2000
10-09-2008, 21:48
well... I started this thread because over the years I've only been so-so satisfied with this lens... but in preparing for a little exhibition I decided I wanted to put up one photo taken with the XA and even though the proofs and scans looked prety mediocre, my 8x12" print looks quite good... I doubt it would go much bigger, but at 8x12" the camera is quite decent stopped down... certainly capable of making quality images.

st3ph3nm
10-24-2008, 12:53
The XA is not meant to be used wide open all the time.
I use it at 5.6-11 most of the time.


Is any lens "meant" to be used at *any* aperture "all the time"?
The best photo I ever took of my wife was with my XA fully open at a street cafe, with a really busy background. Her face is really clear. I only wish my scanner still worked so I could re do my gallery! :p

I'll agree with some here - I've never liked the shape of the lens flare (the square aperture doesn't do much for me) when it happens, and the vignetting you can get is sometimes more than I'd like, but at the end of the day, I shoot far more with my XA than I do with my SLR, and I love it. It can be difficult to focus accurately in low light with the XA's rangefinder, and combined with low depth of field, this can be another drawback. I don't think the XA is the perfect low light camera.

Cheers,
Steve

Henryzx
11-01-2008, 00:51
And yes, XA reminds me very much Pentax PC35AF, in terms of picture.

I bought a brand new PC34AF-M (motor drive) in the box for 5 bucks a few years back and never use it (too busy with my oly's), I didn't know that it would be comparable with the XA., prob. put on a roll and test it next week.

btgc
11-01-2008, 00:55
I bought a brand new PC34AF-M (motor drive) in the box for 5 bucks a few years back and never use it (too busy with my oly's)

I'd be happy had Pentax model aperture control and zone focus. Lens is really nice.

jamxo
01-07-2009, 01:56
Love my Xa, in terms of having a little manual focus rangefinder its just awesome.
Use it wide open alot, and it delivers, and I did that little trick when you marker pen in the rangefinder spot so its easier to focus.

John Lawrence
01-26-2009, 06:33
Foolishly I sold my XA about a year ago, but in the years I had it I found the lens to be very sharp (for the time the camera was produced). Obviously it got better when stopped down a bit, but really I had no problems with it at all. Not for nothing was it christened, "the camera the Pros take on holiday with them"!

kuvvy
07-13-2009, 02:27
Dave, Re the 35Ti, it's a nice camera and the lens has to be the sharpest I've ever used, at least on a compact. I never really liked the camera as much as my Contax T2 though. The aviator style dials on top of the camera give it a unique style. the viewfinder isn't as bright a the T2 though IMO. Sold mine after only a couple of months.

I've got an XA too, bu tsadly it doesn't see much use. I've got a roll of the new Ektar 100 in at the moment which I need to finish. I find the lens acceptably sharp but nowhere near as good as the high-end compacts such as the 35Ti and the T2. What I've always liked is the clamshell design, as when it's closed it protects all the glass, both lens and vf. No case needed.

urban_alchemist
07-19-2009, 12:21
I love it and find the lense very very good (not up with my TC-1 or Ricoh GR1s, but the payoff is the manual RF)... It does like to vignette at f2.8, but I think it adds to the charm - part of its signature.

I like it so much I've just ordered a second one (my present one has a problem with the shutter where it refuses to fire occasionally - just enough that I've missed quite a few shots)...

(@f2.8 on the day I moved out of my old apartment)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3314/3475725447_376c3ef899_b.jpg

Matus
07-19-2009, 12:30
I voted that it "never gets really that sharp" what might be a bit unfair, as my expectations were probably too high. I used it as my P&S camera (NOT the only camera) loaded with Ektar 100 for a 3 weeks trip in New Zealand. At f/2.8 this camera is VERY dreamy - suitable according to my opinion only to special stuff (portraits?), as one keeps stopping down the situation indeed improves and get reasonable by f/5.6 or so, but it never gets technically speaking really sharp. As I was doing mostly landscape stuff - it was not the best choice. But the tiny size had its advantages.

I did some 8x10" prints and had to do some clever sharpening before printing and the results are nice enough, but looking close - it could be better. But the way the camera "draws" is pleasant to me (actually surprising given the fact that the aperture is rectangular).

You can see some of photos HERE (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157621594955954/), though none of the photos were taken wide open, as I was trying avoid that setting. More photos to come in the next days - some wide open too.

Still - I am rather sure that the performance will vary among the XAs. These little guys are turning 30 in between (as I am :o :p ) so maybe a CLA can help to improve on the image quality side (have to ask my wife :D).

A few more comments on the corners - there is quite some vignetting - especially wide open. Whlile this seem to vary from camera to camera, it is something that one should not forget about. I do some partial correction in PS afterwards, thos I do not attempt to remove all of it.

Matus
07-22-2009, 01:20
OK, so as promised, some 100% crops @ 2700 dpi can be found HERE (http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=31007239%40N06&q=crop+XA&m=text) These practically unadjusted (see comments under the pictures) and not sharpened.

I have also added quite some XA photos to my New Zealand set (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157621594955954/), though they still miss the description ...

-----
For some reason once I export the pictures to JPG (and also convert form Adobe1998 to sRGB) and open them with Safari (which is 'color profile aware') I get slight magenta or pink casts - especially visible in the clouds. My monitor (a quite good one) is calibrated, but I might need to check that. In the Photoshop tho photos do not have this cast - independently of the color profile they are converted into.

Trius
07-22-2009, 17:22
As counterintuitive as it may seem, an XA on a tripod, triggered by self-timer, is not a bad thing. Yeah, not the intended modality, but even the piezoelectric shutter actuator doesn't totally counteract vibrations in a tiny, plastic-bodied camera.

wakarimasen
07-25-2009, 07:09
I think there's a real knack to this camera, due to it diminutive size. The phoographs from my first roll of Ektar (just developed and scanned) starts out rather poorly, but seems to improve a little as I've got used to handling it.

rovnguy
07-25-2009, 18:47
From my sweet little XA @ f/11 and whatever shutter speed the camera set (sounded like 1 - 2 seconds) on Ektachrome 100G. I just set the focus to infinity, set the self timer and set the camera on something steady.

MarkoKovacevic
07-25-2009, 20:54
Very sharp in non-flare lighting conditions!

jke
08-20-2009, 12:59
Because it is small, it is easily carried and thus whether or not it is the right camera is moot because it is the camera you have with you when you see things.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2145/2088775529_67db8bfbd5_t.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2145/2088775529_67db8bfbd5_b.jpg)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2015/2089560176_8ebc5be886_t.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2015/2089560176_8ebc5be886_b.jpg)

mauro scacco
10-26-2009, 14:55
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2261/2441198631_48df6dc4ac_o.jpg


Oly Xa, absolutely not bad quality lens, and very confortable to
use and to hide in street photography...


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/4046597932_7ce2070892_b.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2636/4046455826_86151f1d85_b.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2603/4042921219_8691903a09_b.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3511/4041863937_f5d4fa9796_b.jpg


http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2741/4042523426_3cb79830fb_b.jpg


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3359/3274859426_daa576a28c_b.jpg

zuikologist
10-26-2009, 15:50
Mauro - the first one and the sixth one are superb. Well done.

Trius
10-26-2009, 17:14
And I like the 5th one as well. Well done!

Bingley
10-26-2009, 22:14
I know this thread is about sharpness, but the quiet shutter lets you take discreet street shots close up...

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3008/2931064924_76740ebbfa_o.jpg

Bingley
10-26-2009, 22:16
Zone focusing at f.8:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3009/2931065044_45c1f88abc.jpg

nightfly
10-27-2009, 13:04
I was just preparing images for a show and one by the XA squeaked in. I had to do some photoshop work to get rid of the lens flare but it's definitely a keeper. Sold the camera long time ago and now use a GR1 to do the same type of shooting but the design of the XA is second to none and when I look back to when I had it, I seem to have shot a lot more. Lighter and more pocketable than anything else.

That said when reviewing a lot of images taken with different cameras, the XA's don't really stand up to the Leica, GR1 and T4 images but I could open it and set the aperture and focus with one hand in my pocket and always be ready to shoot.

chris00nj
10-27-2009, 14:13
It's a very sharp lens.

Look at the American flag on the third mast:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3544/3420244408_a0b99949df_b.jpg

Here is a detailed scan of that flag:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3624/3419436933_bea1f903d4_o.jpg

ZeissFan
10-27-2009, 14:25
The XA is a very nice camera, but like a lot of cameras, it's been hyped to the point where expectations are raised to an unreasonable level.

I think the lens is very good. Not legendary but very good.

It has plenty of features: Backlight compensation, somewhat decent ISO range, self-timer, battery check and a rangefinder. However, do keep in mind that it's a very narrow base rangefinder coupled to a wide angle lens. For those of us who think the Cosina Voigtlander Bessa cameras have a narrow base rangefinder, try half of that or less (I should measure later when I get home). Still, it's nice to have one.

The body is a bit too smooth, and I can easily see a photographer dropping it. Same goes for the Minox 35 series. The Rollei 35 has enough dials, protrusions and body leather to make it more difficult (although not impossible) to drop.

On my camera, the meter needle is sluggish and inaccurate, although it seems to expose correctly.

btgc
10-27-2009, 23:06
On my camera, the meter needle is sluggish and inaccurate, although it seems to expose correctly.

I think you already knew that XA's VF needle is independent from meter deciding about exposure. Some XA's don't show exposure in VF and still expose just fine.

ZeissFan
10-28-2009, 10:49
Yes, I sort of figured as such. The meter is "ballpark" accurate, but I don't think is always representative of the actual exposure.

not_in_good_order
10-31-2009, 15:36
f5.6 on Elite Chrome 100:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3516/3905869194_3e07a8e8db_b.jpg

f11 on Kodak Portra 800:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2538/3824608751_150ca5e67d_b.jpg

not_in_good_order
11-08-2009, 07:41
It's not pin sharp, but it's not bad either: f2.8 on Superia 800:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2790/4085744967_f898802373_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4085744967/)

Denis M.
11-11-2009, 06:36
I use the camera as a pocket camera at @800, and the meter is pretty good most of the time. I love the 1.5 backlight switch. My sharpness problems with this camera are always in the slow shutter speeds, most shots at 1/30 and below don't come out. I attribute this to the clunky shutter and the lightness of the camera (most of the time, I can see the needle jump when I tap the shutter).

The Yashica GSN doesn't have this problem, but than again it's a brick of camera.

SRam13
11-28-2009, 19:20
I love my current XA. I usually get nice, sharp, nicely exposed photos with it. I one took it and an equally old Nikon N2020 with me to Chicago over a year ago. The shots with the XA rivaled the Nikon shots.

My first XA had a a problem with the, I think, shutter. The camera immediately goes to self-timer mode (without the bottom lever sticking out) after tripping the shutter button.

not_in_good_order
12-01-2009, 19:44
f4 on portra 800 (click the image for a larger view):

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2624/4152239544_db4b9bcb2f.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4152239544/sizes/o/)

mark-b
01-01-2010, 15:51
I'm so glad this topic was brought up.. it's one of Mr. Maitani's masterpieces.
Mine needs a CLA. Can anyone recommend me a good technician? My local one doesn't want to work on analog cameras anymore :(

Bingley
01-09-2010, 19:07
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2755/4246525775_ab4f3f8bf3_o.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2783/4260723141_b70b6484e6_o.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4006/4260723239_f0e04e99ca_o.jpg

l.mar
01-09-2010, 19:44
It's lens is always sharper than the other camera's that I forgot to bring with me . . .

Trius
01-10-2010, 17:14
I'm so glad this topic was brought up.. it's one of Mr. Maitani's masterpieces.
Mine needs a CLA. Can anyone recommend me a good technician? My local one doesn't want to work on analog cameras anymore :(

John Hermanson, Camtech (http://zuiko.com/).

julio1fer
01-20-2010, 04:48
Best at f5.6 IMHO:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a11/julio1fer/Florianopolis-2010/lagoa-01.jpg

piumach
01-20-2010, 06:57
I found this graphs made in the past for a complete test of the XA, showing the sharpness (risolvenza, in terms of number of line per millimiter), the contrast and the light fall off (in terms of stops).
In allt of them the red lines refer to the center and the light grey lines refer to the border.
Sweet point seems to be around f/8-f/11 but very very good also starting from f/5,6.
Also the light fall off of 2,5 stops at borders, f/2,8 confirm what we observ in the real world (vignetting at f2,8 quite noticeable).

newspaperguy
01-29-2010, 04:24
I second (belatedly) Trius' recommendation of Camtech.
Great camera - great lens at all stops. Some vig. wide open.

file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/Rick/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-1.png

I really do have to learn how to post pictures to this forum!

John Shriver
02-06-2010, 15:55
The setup of the lens is tricky, if you take the lens apart, you need a special Olympus spacing jig to put it back together. One internal element/group moves to focus -- it's not a unit-focusing lens. The rear element/group is (I think) the one that needs to be adjusted using the shim, to get optimal sharpness.

So it's quite possible to get a mucked-up XA.

The vignetting at wide apertures is all too real, got really noticeable with Kodachrome 64, not that bad with print film.

oktyone
02-11-2010, 16:45
I'm having an issue with my XA where the sharpness drops considerably on the left side of the pictures (or top when taken vertically), anyone have a clue of what might be happening?, I've had it for more than a year and never had such issues, i thought it might have been a scanning issue (i ordered a CD with scans at a drugstore lab), but it happened to a newer batch of rolls i left developing as well, I've tried looking at the negatives with a magnifying glass, but I can't tell if the sharpness drops at the negatives too, i think they do but I'm not sure.

Anyone have a clue what might be causing this? the only uncommon thing i noticed is that the outermost black metal "mask" or frame that sits just where the picture is projected on to the film through the lens had become completely loose, I've since reglued it in place with a bit of crazy glue, and shot another roll but haven't developed it, so I'm not sure if the problem is solved. I checked the pressure plate and it.

oktyone
02-13-2010, 15:02
Yeah i guess it's time for a new XA, i grew pretty attached to this one, i'll hate seeing it shelved until i get a new one, which is pretty damn hard around these latitudes. I took some more pictures and they all came with that dreaded and awful blurryness at the edge, it's so frustrating... One thing i did notice is that the lens seems to have gotten a very early stage of fungus at some of the inner lenses, it's just barely noticeable like a small dust spec with a microscopic thread that flows from it, considering its size i doubt it's the cause for the loss of sharpness, but right now it's the only thing that at least makes some sort of sense.

tedwhite
02-25-2010, 17:42
No free lunch in this world. In one way or another, every camera is a compromise in some way. XA is no different. You get one of the finest pocketable cameras ever made by a great designer and with a sharp enough lens for its size and intent. But now they're in their dotage and need a CLA if they haven't got one. Actually, I liked mine better than my Yashica T4 because it was virtually silent; the Yashica wasn't, but Yashica's GSN was the quietest camera I ever ran across.

Hereare two shots from my last XA (bought another XA last night after looking at these pics and realizing what a great street camera it is):

JeffGreene
02-25-2010, 18:16
Ted:

I love my XA. Had it since the late 70's. Here are two landscapes that really speak to the camera's capability. And definitely not the photographer's. :-)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/143/326837719_3fc2bae264_o.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/144/326837720_ffd1cb3ad3_o.jpg

viridari
03-30-2010, 15:44
Very much looking forward to my first XA arriving in the post this week.

tedwhite
03-30-2010, 17:41
Jeff Greene: I do like those landscapes and they make me wonder why I never tried to do some with it. Usually all I do are street shots.

OMboy
04-06-2010, 02:35
Fascinating thread - I don't have an XA but I am considering one now...!

Is the XA the only rangefinder in the series...?

viridari
04-06-2010, 06:53
Is the XA the only rangefinder in the series...?

The original XA has a coupled RF (though in a related thread you'll find many complain that the RF patch is nearly transparent)

Subsequent models rely on zone focusing.

lxmike
04-09-2010, 01:41
I really love my Olympus XA, I,ve owned a couple of examples, both have been very sharp, nice quiet shutters but to be honest where I feel they come into their own is night time. I really like putting it on a small tripod, self timer and let the camera do the rest, have got some great night time shots and it does not draw unwanted attention from not so nice people who sometimes hang arround at night:) What I dont like is the falre in the viewfinder which can make meter reading a bit difficult:( but generally for me f4/5.6 and the zuiko gets very sharp, I maily shoot at f5.6 anyway

Juan Valdenebro
04-11-2010, 01:51
Oh, I never thought of using my XA on a tripod! About sharpness, it's fine by f/8, but wide open I don't like it that much...

Cheers,

Juan

David Hughes
04-11-2010, 02:41
Fascinating thread - I don't have an XA but I am considering one now...!

Is the XA the only rangefinder in the series...?
The plain XA is the RF and was followed by the simpler XA2 which is zone focussing and has a programmed shutter. So you just P&S with it. The XA is aperture priority. The XA2 was slightly improved and became the XA3 with a +1 EV adjustment for backlit shots (like the XA has) and takes DX films.

Zone focussing is very easy to use in the XA3 and XA2 but the XA's RF is better (just). The XA 2 and 3 are f/35 not f/2.8 like the XA.

All of them benefit from a complete service but need a specialist to do it.

There's also the XA1 which is very basic, no batteries required, only 100 or 400 ASA film accepted, etc, etc. And there's the XA4 which I've neither seen nor used.

The flash comes in several versions; the A11 is commonest and the A16 is more powerful. Both are usually left at home.

Although I love the XA it does slow you down thinking about the aperture, speeds etc: it's aperture priority but the speeds are indicated by a needle in the VF. The zone focusing of the XA 2 and 3 is a delight to use and it is a programmed shutter. So a pure P&S. Also the XA2 and 3 are dirt cheap...

Dropping an XA can be very expensive, I've owned one from new and know the hard way, which lead me to the XA2 and 3 but I've an XA in the heap as I missed the thing.

DNG
06-25-2010, 11:17
My guess is that the subject need to be standing 6 to 12 feet from the camera to be in acceptable focus for a snap shot sized print when the lens is set to the highlighted 8 foot mark.

3 meters is 10 feet - so your mileage may very.

Raid gets the 64,000 dollar prize - camera shake can be a bugger with the XA - especially when it wanders into the slow shutter speed zone.

Yes, the DOF charts in the Manual shows
5.24' to 17.3' DOF when set at the focus scale to 8 and f/5.6. So for street use, this is pretty good distance span.
If you want more, like 3.91' to INF DOF, Use the 8 foot mark and f/16

Hope this is helpful

tedwhite
06-25-2010, 16:24
I am continually impressed by the quality of the photos that you, raytoei, and others are posting. It's amazing what can be gotten from that tiny camera that's probably going on 30-40 years of age.

Bingley
07-12-2010, 06:19
Here's a recent one at f.4, taken w/ Fuji Pro800Z:

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4135/4739162217_a26e3746d5_b.jpg

abumac
09-16-2010, 08:02
I've got mine yesterday. And I guess I'll like it. Here some pics from my first color-roll. This weekend I will put some b/w in it.

MIkhail
11-04-2010, 17:45
On mine the lens is a lot sharper than the focusing capacity of the dim rangefinder patch :o)

KenD

Take a look here:
http://rick_oleson.tripod.com/index-165.html

mackigator
11-07-2010, 06:55
@raytoei My XA's don't show that type of "smearing" lens flare wide open. The lens has weaknesses, including at f2.8, I'm just pointing out that you might check for oil or a grease smear on either side of your lens, etc, or test another copy of the XA.

lxmike
12-23-2010, 14:04
Ireally like the XA, but the viewfinder is really poor, loads of flare, if the light is anywhere near the viewfinder its difficult to read the meter readout. However, stick it on a tripod and it is great for night shots

TheHub
12-23-2010, 14:40
... if the light is anywhere near the viewfinder its difficult to read the meter readout. ...

In most of the XAs I've encountered, the VF meters have been wrong or dead. They're about 30 years old!

I use my XA just as a pocket camera on the way to work and back, or when I don't want to carry around anything bigger. My only complaint is the advance wheel, which makes too much noise for my liking :( (I stick it in my pocket when advancing to muffle it.) The lens has always been sharp enough :)

Gabriel M.A.
01-18-2011, 02:58
XA Lens Quality?

Yes, there is XA lens quality.

artscar2
08-11-2012, 12:59
My very first camera ever, given to me for Christmas by my OM-loving photographer father. I learned everything with this little gem. Exposure, focusing, composition etc. All my friends were into the P&S 126 film Kodaks and such. It became second nature to use the little RF patch and such. But now it is more work than I remember because I have been SLR'd.

I took it elkhunting in the snow and got a picture of my best friends first elk that I brought to the "real camera store" to get enlarged in 1989. I remember coming to pick up the print (16x20 i think) and the counter guy pulls it out to show me and asks "exactly what camera did you use to take this?" I told him and he nodded in acknowledgement. He said "That's a very sharp photo." Made my day for a lomg time.

I still have that camera and I pick up any I see in thrift stores, garage sales etc. I own 3 xa, and a xa2 that I keep in my tool bag on my motorcycle. Just a great little camera, thats all. And it doesn't eat batteries.

Lawrence A.
08-12-2012, 17:20
The one I bought is in the mail. I hope the lens is good. I got it because I need a 35mm rangefinder lens and can't afford a decent LTM right now. Besides, it looks like fun..

Bingley
08-12-2012, 18:58
It's a lot of fun!

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8007/7340037304_dd067d403f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7340037304/)
Birds in Paradise (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7340037304/) by bingley0522 (http://www.flickr.com/people/[email protected]/), on Flickr

Lawrence A.
09-07-2012, 14:46
You're right. Its a blast!.

Bill58
09-07-2012, 16:46
Great lens/ size, but electronics are prone to failure. I spent a fortune on mine over 7 years and it just died forever. R.I.P

I'll not buy another.

Bingley
09-07-2012, 17:25
Bill, I was concerned about that issue, too, and bought a second XA body in classifieds a couple of years ago. Such a nice little camera...it's nice to have two of them!

wakarimasen
10-01-2012, 12:41
I sent mine for a repair some weeks ago as the shutter wouldn't fire. It's been fixed, serviced and the meter recalibrated and is now ready for collection.

I've got to admit I'm looking forward to collecting it!

David Hughes
10-02-2012, 00:35
Olympus XA; 1/6oth second at f/4 and taken a couple of weeks ago as a sample of what it will do.

http://idrh.smugmug.com/Other/Oddments/i-z7zqrnG/0/XL/Olympus-XA-Sample-f4-30th-XL.jpg

Regards, David

Bingley
10-02-2012, 07:02
Beautiful, David.^^^

Bingley
10-02-2012, 07:02
Plus-X at 320 in Diafine:


http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8460/8025593906_49f15dcb38.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8025593906/)
Untitled (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8025593906/) by bingley0522 (http://www.flickr.com/people/[email protected]/), on Flickr

David Hughes
10-05-2012, 08:36
Beautiful, David.^^^

Hi,

Cor! TYVM.


Regards, David

Lawrence A.
10-05-2012, 08:51
Great lens/ size, but electronics are prone to failure. I spent a fortune on mine over 7 years and it just died forever. R.I.P

I'll not buy another.

I now have two, and will try to keep one working. But the electronics is the reason most of my older cameras are mechanical -- the OM1, rather than the OM2, etc. I had nothing but electric problems with my many OM-2 cameras, and finally gave up. But so far I'm loving this little XA (both of them). I always keep a camera on me, and sometimes this pocketable film camera (yes the lens is sharp) is just what the doctor ordered.

oftheherd
02-09-2013, 02:35
It's a lot of fun!

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8007/7340037304_dd067d403f_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7340037304/)
Birds in Paradise (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/7340037304/) by bingley0522 (http://www.flickr.com/people/[email protected]/), on Flickr

What a nice photo!

I have an XA and for the about 4 years I have had it, it has worked fine. One does have to take care where you put your eye, but the viewfinder and rangefinder are good if one dies. I know that isn't the case for many, but it is for me. I like it.

I also have two different flashes for it (there were 3 that I know of). I repaired a minor problem for a friend of mine on one he got from a thrift shop. I had no front clam shell, so would not work. I had to acquire a parts camera and so fixed it.

Bingley
02-25-2013, 21:00
Thank you! I keep being pleasantly surprised by what it can do.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8370/8505454863_400527faaf_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8505454863/)
Davis Arboretum (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8505454863/) by bingley0522 (http://www.flickr.com/people/[email protected]/), on Flickr

BardParker
02-26-2013, 02:25
Lovely images, Steve!

Is your Davis Arboretum photo shot on Plus-X?

Regards,

Kent

Bingley
02-26-2013, 05:50
Thank you, Kent. Yes it is, exposed at 320 and developed in Diafine.

wblynch
11-20-2013, 10:47
Wow that Plus-X at 320 in Diafine looks better than any Tri-X I have ever seen.

I have to try Diafine now!

I love and miss Plus-X. Still have a small stash I use from time to time.



http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8370/8505454863_400527faaf_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/8505454863/)

shortstop
05-17-2014, 02:56
I've had two XAs. Not so sharp and vignetting too. Now with T3 is different.

Brian Levy
05-17-2014, 07:51
I had a XA at the same time as a Minox ML and the XA was quite visibly disappointing compared to the ML. The dealer thought maybe I got a bad one as I did as I loved Oly lenses. The 2nd had a substantially higher s/n so suspected it was from a different batch or run. It performed the same against the ML so I gave the XA to the partner in my brother's law firm who fell in love with it when he saw it. He was using it well into the late '90s when I last saw him with a camera and he told me he had it repaired 1 time in all those years and had traveled thousands of miles with it and shot thousands of frames with never a problem.

I did prefer the feel and layout of the Minox over the XA but it did not influence me as I used a tripod for the test shots.

Oh, to put it into perspective (hopefully will not get yelled at), when I went looking for a dslr, I went with an Oly because the kit lenses were better than the more popular competitors' so, never lost my love of Oly glass.

Graham Line
05-17-2014, 08:07
The XA is not meant to be used wide open all the time.
I use it at 5.6-11 most of the time.
If needed, I get nice looking images back at 2.8.

Yes. What Raid said. It's a good lens when used within its limits. Bought mine new when they came out around 1979, but now it suffers from a faded rangefinder spot and an intermittent shutter release. On the other hand, I have a lot of good pictures and didn't have to lug an SLR along to get them.

tedwhite
05-17-2014, 08:12
I had one for years, my first pocketable camera. Now I use a Canon S95, my second pocketable camera. The XA served me well, and I suspect the S95 will too.

Bingley
05-17-2014, 08:45
I like the character of the lens a lot, and have no complaints about its performance opened up.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5514/9856568336_a5135fff82_o.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9856568336/)
Bario Santa Cruz (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9856568336/) by bingley0522 (https://www.flickr.com/people/[email protected]/), on Flickr

Bill58
05-23-2014, 13:30
The lens is not a problem, but the electronics are. I'd never buy another one. They're a constant headache.

Dez
05-23-2014, 15:41
I had an XA years ago when shooting almost exclusively slides, and I got rid of it because I found vignetting to be a big problem. Just negs now, so I found a decent one on ebay, so I'll see how it does.

Cheers,
Dez

Bingley
05-23-2014, 21:10
The lens is not a problem, but the electronics are. I'd never buy another one. They're a constant headache.

Hmmmm. I'm keeping mine...

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2859/9267583387_8748cc6c0d_o.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9267583387/)
Salema (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9267583387/) by bingley0522 (https://www.flickr.com/people/[email protected]/), on Flickr

Bingley
05-23-2014, 21:13
Yes, the lens vignettes. Is that a problem?

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2863/9253463687_231497df8e_o.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9253463687/)
Adeus, Lisboa (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9253463687/) by bingley0522 (https://www.flickr.com/people/[email protected]/), on Flickr

Bingley
05-23-2014, 21:22
Better to have a camera in your pocket than no camera at all...:)

https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2852/9219410360_22a75b197b_o.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9219410360/)
In transit (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9219410360/) by bingley0522 (https://www.flickr.com/people/[email protected]/), on Flickr

Bingley
05-23-2014, 21:28
I think the XA sings with Portra 160.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5464/9060095442_d02ddab2d5_o.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9060095442/)
Trams (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9060095442/) by bingley0522 (https://www.flickr.com/people/[email protected]/), on Flickr

Bingley
05-23-2014, 21:33
Olympus marketed the XA as the camera the pros took on vacation. I'm not a pro, by any means, but I think the XA is a great vacation camera. Portra 160:

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5347/9285257550_2e36373dbd_o.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9285257550/)
Salema (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/9285257550/) by bingley0522 (https://www.flickr.com/people/[email protected]/), on Flickr

jmilkins
05-24-2014, 02:18
For a camera barely larger than three rolls of film they are a design masterpiece. My XAs are great for their time and my XA4 with it's 28mm f4 that has a 30cm macro mode is even better.

BardParker
05-24-2014, 04:50
I love my XA. Sharp enough for me.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7211/6935351618_31c509bb03_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/byRupU)18220033.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/byRupU) by KentWebb (https://www.flickr.com/people/[email protected]/), on Flickr

XA; Kodak BW400CN; NCPS Process and scan

Solinar
05-24-2014, 05:59
I love my XA. Sharp enough for me.

Even though I'm more of a nifty-fifty shooter, the 35 on the XA stopped down for a day light exposure is plenty sharp.

Best Regards,

Bingley
05-27-2014, 21:42
The best camera is the one you have in your pocket...:)


https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3787/14265353536_66cb9ca965_o.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/14265353536/)
Happy Day (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/14265353536/) by bingley0522 (https://www.flickr.com/people/[email protected]/), on Flickr

GRN
05-28-2014, 00:09
The best camera is the one you have in your pocket...:)
Happy Day (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/14265353536/) by bingley0522 (https://www.flickr.com/people/[email protected]/), on Flickr

Marvelous shot Bingley !

MiniMoke
05-28-2014, 00:18
I had an XA2 for quite a while and it was a very nice performer.

A couple of years ago, I bought an XA. The images were OK but not as nice as those from the XA2. After a few months of use, it suffered a terminal fault with the focussing mechanism. Luckily, I'd bought it from a London dealer and they refunded the purchase price. Now that's what I call service!

It could be that the reason for the XA's poor output was that the focus mechanism was already out of kilter.

Same for me, the XA is fine, but until now I like the XA2's lens better. But I'll need to shoot some more films to make a final decision.

Definitely better at 5.6 as wide open though

13Promet
10-18-2015, 05:58
I've been using it for 20+ years and I think the lens on my sample was very sharp.

Rio de Janeiro, 2004, Kodak cheapo 200 ASA colour negative converted to BW after scanning with Coolscan 4000
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/653/21653824783_6edd862d1f_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/yZtvGB)Scan-151018-0004_PC (Large) (https://flic.kr/p/yZtvGB) by S A (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/), su Flickr

100% center crop from 24 Mpx file
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5677/22248845546_206619ec5e_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/zU49Dh)Scan-151018-0004_PP (https://flic.kr/p/zU49Dh) by S A (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/), su Flickr
Sharp enough? :cool:

Unfortunately, the electronics stopped working a few years ago.
I'm going to buy another one sooner or later...

nukecoke
10-23-2015, 09:09
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MJ9r1eD4kVDgJkxQDzcXCk-u5iiVpN26XwvNTiobP6k/edit#gid=1605660560

Resolution of oldie goodie compact 35mm. XA lies in the last row.

Bingley
10-23-2015, 09:26
My XAs keep trucking along. I took one of them to Amsterdam this past June. Portra 160:

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/602/20416958668_f3e4dd3762_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/x7bfuL)Open (https://flic.kr/p/x7bfuL) by bingley0522 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/), on Flickr

Bingley
10-23-2015, 09:27
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5744/20369405758_feaf15f890_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/x2YwF1)Bloem Gracht (https://flic.kr/p/x2YwF1) by bingley0522 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/), on Flickr

Bingley
10-23-2015, 09:28
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5833/20439419510_679f4f5bae_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/x9anjE)Prinsen Gracht (https://flic.kr/p/x9anjE) by bingley0522 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/), on Flickr

btgc
10-23-2015, 09:59
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MJ9r1eD4kVDgJkxQDzcXCk-u5iiVpN26XwvNTiobP6k/edit#gid=1605660560

Resolution of oldie goodie compact 35mm. XA lies in the last row.

48/2 of Konica III looks only average in that chart. Well, I do not trust everything I see on Net.

nukecoke
10-23-2015, 10:08
48/2 of Konica III looks only average in that chart. Well, I do not trust everything I see on Net.

It's actually from a book (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=ISBN+487956043X) as I stated in the chart. Some japanese guy scanned some pages and put it on his blog. I simply translated the page.

jmilkins
03-21-2017, 00:12
Thanks for posting and translating. Very interesting charts,even if some people have different personal experiences. I fam quite happy to peruse the stats and the lens typology.

DutchBoy17
03-21-2017, 17:21
I have a thing for very-compact cams, though the plastic ones do seem rather fragile (I've been through a series of Minox 35 cams that were good for 0 - 3 rolls of film each; I did really enjoy their output when/while they worked).

In any case, I got an XA2 and an XA around the same time. The seals on the XA were gum, and it's VF meter seems off, so it sat for a long time while I ran a few rolls through the XA2 (I really like that camera!). I finally replaced the XA seals and ran a roll of Fuji through it and am pleased with the image quality.

I usually default to f/8 for 35mm, sometimes f/11 for scale-focus, unless subject or light lends itself to a different aperture, so I'm guessing this exposure was at f/8.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3955/33422707762_524c569b1c_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/SVs7A7)
Annapolis Marina, Olympus XA camera (35/2.8), Fuji Pro-H ISO 400 film, developed by thedarkroom, #thedarkroomlab_uniqueperspective (https://flic.kr/p/SVs7A7) by Henk Sijgers (https://www.flickr.com/photos/henk-sijgers/), on Flickr