An excellent review of what is a fab little camera. Yes, they are a bit fiddly for blokes with bigger hands but it's not a handicap. I prefer my simpler XA2 with it's slightly slower lens which is a Tessar copy. The zone focus is a doddle and mostly accurate as is the auto aperture. They're a lot cheaper as well. Either of these little marvels is as good as, and probably better than the over hyped Mju ii. I enjoy the variety of your offerings, keep 'em coming.
Thank you for your comment. I think I'd be equally happy with an XA2 myself - but this XA came up at a 'bite yer arm off price' 🙂 The XA is nestling in my backpack as I cycle to work every day and is very much a constant companion. 400 iso black and white is wonderful with the little fellah 🙂 and the only metering I have in my camera collection that is as good as the little XA's is the Matrix metering in my Nikon F4 - and that's high praise.
You are spot on with this video. The XA is a favourite of mine. I know some people have had problems with overexposure, because they didn't read the meter in the viewfinder correctly, but that's just a matter of reading and understanding the manual, if you ask me. I brought something smaller and lighter with AF and built in flash as my pocket camera during my summer vacation, but I could easily have brought my XA instead. For what it's worth, I like the hair trigger shutter button. My first ever point and shoot camera from back when I was a boy had a shutter button, that took effort to press down, and some of my photos displayed camera shake because of that. You don't get that with the XA.
I think the shutter release takes getting used to - remember I'm an analogue Leica and Nikon man - but it's super rewarding if you do. I'm off out tomorrow where my companion camera could be a top end Nikon or a legendary Leica - or even a monumental Mamiya - but the Olympus will be in my pocket in addition to, or even instead of) anything else in my cupboard - it's that good .
@@ashsphotolounge my first ever camera was my father's Minolta rangefinder from the 60's. I never had camera shake with that camera either, so I know where you are coming from. I've just had a couple of cameras since, where the shutter button had too much resistance in it, causing camera shake from time to time. It was one of the first things I noticed when I got my XA. Putting my index finger on the shutter button was all it took to take a picture, and I love that.
I was given a ‘jammed’ XA2 as a gift which turned out to fine after be damaged battery contacts were cleaned. The metering is about 1 stop off but this is mostly sorted by moving the ASA selector. It’s definitely not the kind of camera I normally use (big pre-ai Nikons) but it is great as a social camera as it can easily be carried in a jacket pocket. I agree the shutter button is rather ‘unsatisfying’ but the f3.5 lens is great. I’d love to try the XA4 with the wider 28mm lens
I've had both the XA2 and the XA4. I'd say the XA2 is the better of the two, personally, I had two of them. Yes the XA4 is wide(r) angle but the lens is no sharper overall. Although I've never had the XA (and probably couldn't justify the cost of one, now) I'm not convinced the rangefinder faff is worth it, the zone focusing on the XA2/4 never really gave me any issues, i.e. I rarely had an out-of-focus shot. Faster lens I guess is the true bonus of the XA.
Good points in your review I think. I like that camera very much. Back in the 80ties my dad bought one in Saudi Arabia of all places and I am the lucky owner now :). Agree with the metering as well - spot on most of the time. And the size is just impressive for what you get.
I was also gifted an XA a few months ago that was in a box of assorted point and shoots and some Polaroids. You have described how to use the XA perfectly. I take it with me nearly everywhere now. My only problem has been holding it steady enough, I'll try some 400 speed film and see if it works better for me.
Thanks for your comment Philip. I think a nice, crisp grain 400iso is where this little camera lives: reporting life as you see it from up close and personal.
Thank you for the review. :). Just a couple of questions hopefully you can answer. When using B&W film, would holding a square colour filter over the lens and light sensor degrade the image in anyway? The manual says you can't use filters with the camera but unsure if they mean because there is no way to attach filters or if they mean something else to do with the lens. Also I like to overexpose colour film most of the time and was wanting to know how the XA handled that with the images as its not fully manual. I mean say if using ISO 400 film but setting the ISO on the camera to ISO 200 but still develop as 400.
Hi - the only reason I see that you would have a problem with filters would be flare and reflection from just holding one in front. Use a rubber hood on the filter for best results. I've used filters held in front of a lens on many other cameras so there should be no real problems with an XA. Yep over exposing by halving the film speed (one more stop of exposure) will work just fine. Just remember to use the backlight lever for backlit subjects ... and watch your shutter speed doesn't get too low (if so open up your aperture a bit). Hope this helps Ash
The reason the camera is not threaded to mount filters is that it was targeted for sale to people who take pictures to get 3x5 inch drugstore prints of their vacations or kid's trip to the zoo. The same demographic of photographer who would use a digicam today. It was neither designed nor intended for use by photographers who use filters or a tripod, pick and choose among film types or developers, or have their negative enlarged to larger than a snapshot. It's a terrific design for what it does, but it's not the camera of a serious photographer, meaning one who critically examines his results. The aperture is made out of two V-shaped sliding plates, giving an out-of-focus image which is just bizarre. The viewfinder is dim and squinty. The baseline on the rangefinder is so short that its lack of accuracy makes it practically useless until the rangefinder optics fade. Then it is absolutely useless. The lens is about as bad optically has any you could find in a camera made after 1950. It is better than a Holga or a disposable, but that's about it. I have to assume that the many who praise its use are scanning their images to post to low-res applications, like TH-cam, Instagram, etc., and for that, it is just fine. So go with Oly and forget rubber-banding filters to the camera, or buy a more serious instrument. (Yes, you can cheat the meter by setting the ISO speed different from the film's rating. If you have 400 ISO film and want to over-expose one stop, set the meter to 200. Develop has normal, i.e., at 400.)
@@randallstewart1224 Interesting point of view Randall. My two 'street photography for the nervous' episodes were done with an Olympus XA and a Leica IIIc. The XA having a 28mm Zuico (fixed) and the Leica fitted with a Voightlander 35mm Color-Skopar. The negative 'DSLR' scanning was done with a 60mm Micro Nikkor at 32 megapixels. I'm assuming here that you would consider the Leica a serious camera so that comparisons could be made? I'm happy to put sectional scans up to compare the two sets of results. My own take is that the V shaped aperture is not an issue due to the focal length of the lens. You simply won't be getting 'bokeh' (good or bad) with a 28mm in normal use. And by 'normal' I mean use that this camera excels at which is street photography. Likewise I would agree the rangefinder is fairly inaccurate, but with a 28mm lens zone focusing is more than adequate for street work. It has a multi element glass lens whereas a Holga has a plastic single element one, and it has an extremely accurate metering system which I have compared to my Nikon F4 - and they are both right in about the same number of situations. People create images that stand 'critical examination' using everything from iPhones to pinhole cameras because composition and inventiveness are the requisite of a beautiful image - not how sharp it is. I'll bung up some up side by side stuff from the Leica - perhaps side by side with some 50mm Summitar images at some point soon ... that should be fun 🙂
Hi Richard - yep there is a little vignetting at full aperture, along with a bit softness in the corners, but by f4/f5.6 it has all cleared up. I'm not somebody who minds a bit of vignetting mind - if it's not there naturally I add it in post 🙂
An excellent review of what is a fab little camera. Yes, they are a bit fiddly for blokes with bigger hands but it's not a handicap. I prefer my simpler XA2 with it's slightly slower lens which is a Tessar copy. The zone focus is a doddle and mostly accurate as is the auto aperture. They're a lot cheaper as well. Either of these little marvels is as good as, and probably better than the over hyped Mju ii. I enjoy the variety of your offerings, keep 'em coming.
Thank you for your comment. I think I'd be equally happy with an XA2 myself - but this XA came up at a 'bite yer arm off price' 🙂 The XA is nestling in my backpack as I cycle to work every day and is very much a constant companion. 400 iso black and white is wonderful with the little fellah 🙂 and the only metering I have in my camera collection that is as good as the little XA's is the Matrix metering in my Nikon F4 - and that's high praise.
You are spot on with this video. The XA is a favourite of mine.
I know some people have had problems with overexposure, because they didn't read the meter in the viewfinder correctly, but that's just a matter of reading and understanding the manual, if you ask me.
I brought something smaller and lighter with AF and built in flash as my pocket camera during my summer vacation, but I could easily have brought my XA instead.
For what it's worth, I like the hair trigger shutter button. My first ever point and shoot camera from back when I was a boy had a shutter button, that took effort to press down, and some of my photos displayed camera shake because of that. You don't get that with the XA.
I think the shutter release takes getting used to - remember I'm an analogue Leica and Nikon man - but it's super rewarding if you do. I'm off out tomorrow where my companion camera could be a top end Nikon or a legendary Leica - or even a monumental Mamiya - but the Olympus will be in my pocket in addition to, or even instead of) anything else in my cupboard - it's that good .
it's an expert's simple camera - full stop
@@ashsphotolounge my first ever camera was my father's Minolta rangefinder from the 60's. I never had camera shake with that camera either, so I know where you are coming from.
I've just had a couple of cameras since, where the shutter button had too much resistance in it, causing camera shake from time to time.
It was one of the first things I noticed when I got my XA. Putting my index finger on the shutter button was all it took to take a picture, and I love that.
I was given a ‘jammed’ XA2 as a gift which turned out to fine after be damaged battery contacts were cleaned. The metering is about 1 stop off but this is mostly sorted by moving the ASA selector. It’s definitely not the kind of camera I normally use (big pre-ai Nikons) but it is great as a social camera as it can easily be carried in a jacket pocket. I agree the shutter button is rather ‘unsatisfying’ but the f3.5 lens is great. I’d love to try the XA4 with the wider 28mm lens
thanks for the comment Matt - I think as a carry anywhere substitute for a phone camera is definitely where it scores 🙂
I've had both the XA2 and the XA4. I'd say the XA2 is the better of the two, personally, I had two of them. Yes the XA4 is wide(r) angle but the lens is no sharper overall. Although I've never had the XA (and probably couldn't justify the cost of one, now) I'm not convinced the rangefinder faff is worth it, the zone focusing on the XA2/4 never really gave me any issues, i.e. I rarely had an out-of-focus shot. Faster lens I guess is the true bonus of the XA.
Good points in your review I think. I like that camera very much. Back in the 80ties my dad bought one in Saudi Arabia of all places and I am the lucky owner now :). Agree with the metering as well - spot on most of the time. And the size is just impressive for what you get.
Super bang for buck - and forget exposure, the XA has you covered.
Thanks for the comment Ulrick 🙂
I was also gifted an XA a few months ago that was in a box of assorted point and shoots and some Polaroids. You have described how to use the XA perfectly. I take it with me nearly everywhere now. My only problem has been holding it steady enough, I'll try some 400 speed film and see if it works better for me.
Thanks for your comment Philip. I think a nice, crisp grain 400iso is where this little camera lives: reporting life as you see it from up close and personal.
Thank you for the review. :). Just a couple of questions hopefully you can answer. When using B&W film, would holding a square colour filter over the lens and light sensor degrade the image in anyway? The manual says you can't use filters with the camera but unsure if they mean because there is no way to attach filters or if they mean something else to do with the lens.
Also I like to overexpose colour film most of the time and was wanting to know how the XA handled that with the images as its not fully manual. I mean say if using ISO 400 film but setting the ISO on the camera to ISO 200 but still develop as 400.
Hi - the only reason I see that you would have a problem with filters would be flare and reflection from just holding one in front. Use a rubber hood on the filter for best results. I've used filters held in front of a lens on many other cameras so there should be no real problems with an XA. Yep over exposing by halving the film speed (one more stop of exposure) will work just fine. Just remember to use the backlight lever for backlit subjects ... and watch your shutter speed doesn't get too low (if so open up your aperture a bit).
Hope this helps
Ash
The reason the camera is not threaded to mount filters is that it was targeted for sale to people who take pictures to get 3x5 inch drugstore prints of their vacations or kid's trip to the zoo. The same demographic of photographer who would use a digicam today. It was neither designed nor intended for use by photographers who use filters or a tripod, pick and choose among film types or developers, or have their negative enlarged to larger than a snapshot. It's a terrific design for what it does, but it's not the camera of a serious photographer, meaning one who critically examines his results. The aperture is made out of two V-shaped sliding plates, giving an out-of-focus image which is just bizarre. The viewfinder is dim and squinty. The baseline on the rangefinder is so short that its lack of accuracy makes it practically useless until the rangefinder optics fade. Then it is absolutely useless. The lens is about as bad optically has any you could find in a camera made after 1950. It is better than a Holga or a disposable, but that's about it. I have to assume that the many who praise its use are scanning their images to post to low-res applications, like TH-cam, Instagram, etc., and for that, it is just fine. So go with Oly and forget rubber-banding filters to the camera, or buy a more serious instrument. (Yes, you can cheat the meter by setting the ISO speed different from the film's rating. If you have 400 ISO film and want to over-expose one stop, set the meter to 200. Develop has normal, i.e., at 400.)
@@randallstewart1224 Interesting point of view Randall. My two 'street photography for the nervous' episodes were done with an Olympus XA and a Leica IIIc. The XA having a 28mm Zuico (fixed) and the Leica fitted with a Voightlander 35mm Color-Skopar. The negative 'DSLR' scanning was done with a 60mm Micro Nikkor at 32 megapixels. I'm assuming here that you would consider the Leica a serious camera so that comparisons could be made? I'm happy to put sectional scans up to compare the two sets of results. My own take is that the V shaped aperture is not an issue due to the focal length of the lens. You simply won't be getting 'bokeh' (good or bad) with a 28mm in normal use. And by 'normal' I mean use that this camera excels at which is street photography. Likewise I would agree the rangefinder is fairly inaccurate, but with a 28mm lens zone focusing is more than adequate for street work. It has a multi element glass lens whereas a Holga has a plastic single element one, and it has an extremely accurate metering system which I have compared to my Nikon F4 - and they are both right in about the same number of situations. People create images that stand 'critical examination' using everything from iPhones to pinhole cameras because composition and inventiveness are the requisite of a beautiful image - not how sharp it is. I'll bung up some up side by side stuff from the Leica - perhaps side by side with some 50mm Summitar images at some point soon ... that should be fun 🙂
I used to have an XA2 model but found it suffered from vignetting on some shots - did you find any with the XA? I moved onto the Minox ML 35mm camera.
Hi Richard - yep there is a little vignetting at full aperture, along with a bit softness in the corners, but by f4/f5.6 it has all cleared up. I'm not somebody who minds a bit of vignetting mind - if it's not there naturally I add it in post 🙂