Bought my XA new in 1982 - and I still use it! If Olympus re-introduced it with identical looks and specification, BUT with a digital sensor, I'd buy one like a shot.
Really nice review - I just bought one from ebay, so looking forward to it arriving. I've struggled to find a small cheap camera that I can chuck in my handbag all the time that produces great images.
It's a great camera, I still can't think of another ranger finder camera as small as the XA. But even the later zone focus ones are easy to use once you stop down to F8.
I've entertained picking up an XA on several occasions, but still waiting on a good deal. Like you mentioned they are pretty pricey. Thanks for going through the different models, I had no idea that the newer iterations were inferior to the original. I'll definitely aim to pick up the first model! Recently, I just picked up two small zone focus RF's that I'm testing now, the Minolta Himatic G, and Olympus 35 EC.
I just bought a XA and I love it ! So Tiny, so light, so discreet with no Lens cap. Every features you need. Could be a point and shoot at f/5.6 and 3m. Allow pushing or pulling films. I also imagine (do not test it yet) that you can do double exposure. If you find one, do not hesitate !
Just went down to the basement and found mine,also have a stylus. thanks for tips! My first camera was a oly om2n. A neat small 35, have you tried these?
Thankyou so much for the review you mentioned the exact problem I have with mine, when you wind on film advance the actual winding on takes a picture and the shutter button does not work, is this a serious problem to fix? thanks Tim
Well in the end, I got fedup with it...as it was too unreliable to trust. Kept firing off shots on its own..or wouldn't work at all...so sat in a draw for a long time. A friend told me about a camera repair place in the UK and so I sent my XA to them and they fixed it and fully serviced it for me. Using donor parts from broken XAs that they have. It came back like new and now works perfectly, it's quickly became one of my most used cameras and is super reliable now. The place I used is: www.camserve.co.uk/
@@savedpurplecat I think I paid around £50 or £60, the thing is I've had so many XA's with issues ...I think it's almost impossible to find a really nice fully working one, as the original XA with the ranger finder is the oldest model. So felt it worth spending the money to finally have one in perfect working order.
Recently found this camera in a second hand store for very cheap. I tested it and the picture quality was very good in infinity focus.The issues were pictures taken at close distance maybe 6 to 8 ft were badly out of focus even though the square in the viewfinder was perfectly aligned. What could be wrong?
formafantasma the closer to the subject the thinner the depth of field so it is harder to get focus if your shooting at 2.8 for example. I just got two films back from the lab, one was landscapes and I was really pleased with the sharpness of every photos. The other was close up photos of my kids and about half were out of focus. Which was disappointing. It could be we both need to adjust the range finder patch. It's not too hard to do. I googled it a few months back and found a guide. It's a screw you turn that's hidden under a black cover (from.memory)
Olympus XA, such a great camera! But yes sometimes the rangefinder patch has faded... I don't like the tape trick. A much better solution is to put a pink filter on the finder! (I used an old multigrade filter that I cut the right size) 35mm-compact.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=42643&f=55
The Contax T is better than the XA in almost every way. The two most significant for me are (1) the Contax T lens is far superior optically. To fit the lens in the XA for use without having to pop out (like Contax T and Rollei 35), Olympus used an inverted retrofocus design (only time), which has serious performance issues outside the fairly sharp center third of the image. Contrary to chat from the fanboys, the XA is optically just a minimum snapshot quality, inferior to most small point-n-shoot cameras of its day costing much less. (2) Exposure is automatic only; almost no user control over the exposure. It's virtue is that it is the smallest, full feature auto full frame camera. I'm sure this guy's repeated comments about the exceptional quality of the lens are well meant, but several objective performance tests of the XA at and after its introduction clearly evidence otherwise.
That's really interesting I'll have to check out the contax T. For me since making this video I've not used my XA very often not because of the image quality from the lens but because I find the rubber shutter dial frustrating. It's either overly sensitive or has issues and don't respond. Some cameras age better than others and the XA is prone to issues unless well taken care of.
The XA was designed and intended to be a vacation/travel camera for casual snapshots. It's best feature is its small, pocketable size and covering up without a separate protective case. It is auto exposure with no manual override. It's rangefinder is barely functional. It's electrics are delicate and ready to fail. Contra the video, the lens is barely adequate. It's prime design target was a small physical depth so it could be fitted into a thin camera body. It's optical performance was at best secondary. It vignettes more than any camera of its generation. It's sharpness is so poor that it's good up to a 8x10 inch enlargement, which is fine for its intended use. I cannot think of another small camera of its era which does not have a much better lens. Olympus never used that lens design again.
Is that your final answer because: I have enlargements much larger than 8x10 that are more than adequate in terms of sharpness. I refer here to the XA which is better than my XA3. Both cameras are quite old and still functioning perfectly. The bokeh is of course not as desirable as a lens with more blades but, who cares , it's a minor issue. Many excellent lenses vignette and larger apertures and improve with stopping down. You can override the exposure by changing the iso as well as the backlight 1.5 stop feature.
@@myoung48281 I repeat: any objective resolutioj test of the XA has shown that it is adequate in the center of the image and poor in the edges and corners. On one test, showing enlargement at 40x, other cmeras show more of less quality; the XA image could not be recognized as a test chart at all. As to user exposure adjustment, I don't consider a "backlight" adjustment of 1.5 stops to be a meaningful control. You can change the ASA setting to override the auto- exposure on any camera of this vintage, but that doesn't make it meaningfully convenient. On the XA the ASA controls are so small as to be a useless control of exposure on an individual shot basis. As a practical snapshot taking machine, almost any digital point-n-shoot will do a better job than an XA and avoids the expense of film and processing.
@@randallstewart175 I don't care about objective resolution tests , cameras like that aren't pro cameras and are intended for casual use such as street photography. That chunky look afforded by the minimal aperture blades gives the XA a special look, some people like it very much, I like it very much. Resolution tests do not equate to desirable image appearance, that is an esthetic issue. Photography is not limited to technical analysis.
Adriana Syakirah , that's too much for an XA2. It's not worth to me the high prices people are selling it for. It's a great camera but it's not that great.
Film Camera Reviews I agree. the film market in my country is very very small, and people who sells their 2nd hand cameras sell at a high price bcs they know it's hard to find. There are no thrift shops to go camera hunting either. So you either buy an overpriced film camera or not have one...
Adriana Syakirah that's a shame. I'm quite lucky and often find bargains in the UK in charity shops. Today I found a Polaroid 1000 for £5. instagram.com/p/BjPrxC4lF5_/?igshid=1dut3m1uzx9di
Bought my XA new in 1982 - and I still use it! If Olympus re-introduced it with identical looks and specification, BUT with a digital sensor, I'd buy one like a shot.
Great review, I still have my XA2. Great little camera.
I have the XA2 and have just bought the XA.... big fan of rangefinders
Really nice review - I just bought one from ebay, so looking forward to it arriving. I've struggled to find a small cheap camera that I can chuck in my handbag all the time that produces great images.
It's a great camera, I still can't think of another ranger finder camera as small as the XA. But even the later zone focus ones are easy to use once you stop down to F8.
I've entertained picking up an XA on several occasions, but still waiting on a good deal. Like you mentioned they are pretty pricey. Thanks for going through the different models, I had no idea that the newer iterations were inferior to the original. I'll definitely aim to pick up the first model! Recently, I just picked up two small zone focus RF's that I'm testing now, the Minolta Himatic G, and Olympus 35 EC.
filmismorefun I'm after an Olympus 35 SP but the prices are high
The EC does look good fun though
Ooh, bloody good tip on that black tape!
They are excellent little cameras! I have an XA2 and an XA1,which I may put a film through one day for a bit of fun.
I just bought a XA and I love it !
So Tiny, so light, so discreet with no Lens cap.
Every features you need.
Could be a point and shoot at f/5.6 and 3m.
Allow pushing or pulling films.
I also imagine (do not test it yet) that you can do double exposure.
If you find one, do not hesitate !
Agreed, an amazing camera.
Plan on reviewing the 35sp?
Just went down to the basement and found mine,also have a stylus. thanks for tips! My first camera was a oly om2n. A neat small 35, have you tried these?
David Designer , sure have. Great camera
Thankyou so much for the review you mentioned the exact problem I have with mine, when you wind on film advance the actual winding on takes a picture and the shutter button does not work, is this a serious problem to fix? thanks Tim
Well in the end, I got fedup with it...as it was too unreliable to trust.
Kept firing off shots on its own..or wouldn't work at all...so sat in a draw for a long time. A friend told me about a camera repair place in the UK and so I sent my XA to them and they fixed it and fully serviced it for me. Using donor parts from broken XAs that they have. It came back like new and now works perfectly, it's quickly became one of my most used cameras and is super reliable now.
The place I used is:
www.camserve.co.uk/
@@dangerpowers123 thats great info thanks ,do you mind me asking how much the fix was?
@@savedpurplecat I think I paid around £50 or £60, the thing is I've had so many XA's with issues ...I think it's almost impossible to find a really nice fully working one, as the original XA with the ranger finder is the oldest model. So felt it worth spending the money to finally have one in perfect working order.
Recently found this camera in a second hand store for very cheap. I tested it and the picture quality was very good in infinity focus.The issues were pictures taken at close distance maybe 6 to 8 ft were badly out of focus even though the square in the viewfinder was perfectly aligned. What could be wrong?
formafantasma the closer to the subject the thinner the depth of field so it is harder to get focus if your shooting at 2.8 for example. I just got two films back from the lab, one was landscapes and I was really pleased with the sharpness of every photos. The other was close up photos of my kids and about half were out of focus. Which was disappointing. It could be we both need to adjust the range finder patch. It's not too hard to do. I googled it a few months back and found a guide. It's a screw you turn that's hidden under a black cover (from.memory)
Thanks for responding. It looks like it's going to be a difficult task but I really love this little camera. I'll give it a try this weekend.
Olympus XA, such a great camera! But yes sometimes the rangefinder patch has faded... I don't like the tape trick. A much better solution is to put a pink filter on the finder! (I used an old multigrade filter that I cut the right size) 35mm-compact.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=42643&f=55
Contax T (first one) is a good bit smaller and a rangefinder with similar specs
The Contax T is better than the XA in almost every way. The two most significant for me are (1) the Contax T lens is far superior optically. To fit the lens in the XA for use without having to pop out (like Contax T and Rollei 35), Olympus used an inverted retrofocus design (only time), which has serious performance issues outside the fairly sharp center third of the image. Contrary to chat from the fanboys, the XA is optically just a minimum snapshot quality, inferior to most small point-n-shoot cameras of its day costing much less. (2) Exposure is automatic only; almost no user control over the exposure. It's virtue is that it is the smallest, full feature auto full frame camera. I'm sure this guy's repeated comments about the exceptional quality of the lens are well meant, but several objective performance tests of the XA at and after its introduction clearly evidence otherwise.
That's really interesting I'll have to check out the contax T. For me since making this video I've not used my XA very often not because of the image quality from the lens but because I find the rubber shutter dial frustrating. It's either overly sensitive or has issues and don't respond. Some cameras age better than others and the XA is prone to issues unless well taken care of.
Peace and prosperity my brother
g a n g
the XA must be the cheapest camera on my bucketlist!
it just looks so small and so amazing to shoot
great camera
The XA was designed and intended to be a vacation/travel camera for casual snapshots. It's best feature is its small, pocketable size and covering up without a separate protective case. It is auto exposure with no manual override. It's rangefinder is barely functional. It's electrics are delicate and ready to fail. Contra the video, the lens is barely adequate. It's prime design target was a small physical depth so it could be fitted into a thin camera body. It's optical performance was at best secondary. It vignettes more than any camera of its generation. It's sharpness is so poor that it's good up to a 8x10 inch enlargement, which is fine for its intended use. I cannot think of another small camera of its era which does not have a much better lens. Olympus never used that lens design again.
Is that your final answer because: I have enlargements much larger than 8x10 that are more than adequate in terms of sharpness. I refer here to the XA which is better than my XA3. Both cameras are quite old and still functioning perfectly. The bokeh is of course not as desirable as a lens with more blades but, who cares , it's a minor issue. Many excellent lenses vignette and larger apertures and improve with stopping down. You can override the exposure by changing the iso as well as the backlight 1.5 stop feature.
@@myoung48281 I repeat: any objective resolutioj test of the XA has shown that it is adequate in the center of the image and poor in the edges and corners. On one test, showing enlargement at 40x, other cmeras show more of less quality; the XA image could not be recognized as a test chart at all. As to user exposure adjustment, I don't consider a "backlight" adjustment of 1.5 stops to be a meaningful control. You can change the ASA setting to override the auto- exposure on any camera of this vintage, but that doesn't make it meaningfully convenient. On the XA the ASA controls are so small as to be a useless control of exposure on an individual shot basis. As a practical snapshot taking machine, almost any digital point-n-shoot will do a better job than an XA and avoids the expense of film and processing.
@@randallstewart175 I don't care about objective resolution tests , cameras like that aren't pro cameras and are intended for casual use such as street photography. That chunky look afforded by the minimal aperture blades gives the XA a special look, some people like it very much, I like it very much. Resolution tests do not equate to desirable image appearance, that is an esthetic issue. Photography is not limited to technical analysis.
This camera takes batteries... did you check on the bottom before making this video?
Fully aware it takes batteries for the meter. I'll have to rewatch it...did I say it doesn't for some daft reason?
the cheapest one i could find was an XA2 at $180 :( I didnt buy it bcs the price was too high for me
Adriana Syakirah , that's too much for an XA2.
It's not worth to me the high prices people are selling it for. It's a great camera but it's not that great.
Film Camera Reviews I agree. the film market in my country is very very small, and people who sells their 2nd hand cameras sell at a high price bcs they know it's hard to find. There are no thrift shops to go camera hunting either. So you either buy an overpriced film camera or not have one...
Adriana Syakirah that's a shame. I'm quite lucky and often find bargains in the UK in charity shops. Today I found a Polaroid 1000 for £5.
instagram.com/p/BjPrxC4lF5_/?igshid=1dut3m1uzx9di