Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/11/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]No filter on my original XA. Would like the 28 version, but I'll bet it vignettes a lot. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Rabiner Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 8:20 PM To: Leica Users Group Subject: Re: [Leica] Olympus XA (OT) I love XA's I had a new one with a 28 which was stolen out of my car when I was buying a movie ticket and I left the door unlocked. Then I got a used original one which I think came with a 35mm lens. Noticeable Vignetting in the edges. And I think you cant put a filter on it. A great introduction to a Leica like experience as you do have a rangefinder which people panic is not on a Rollei 35 which has a lens which is great right out to the corners. At least mine was. It was a Tessar not a Sonnar. Mark William Rabiner Photography http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > From: Ric Carter <ricc at embarqmail.com> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 21:02:28 -0500 > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Olympus XA (OT) > > I bought a used XA long ago because I loved amusement parks. The XA would > fit > in a blue jeans pocket as well as a shirt pocket. Even a small camera > dangling > around the neck was a no go on rollercoasters, and there was no one to > hold > equipment when I rode. > > It's still around, though I have not broken it out in a year or so. The > 35/2.8 > is impeccable. > > ric > > On Nov 24, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Don Dory <don.dory at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I still have three XA's in various iterations. However, I've come to >> terms >> with carrying an M; if I want smaller I will mount a 35 2.8 Serenar which >> is really thin making the M pocketable. I just won't give up the >> precision >> and repeatability of manual focusing. >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Bill Pearce <billcpearce at cox.net> >> wrote: >> >>> While I understand that the size of the XA is probably too small to >>> house >>> both a FF sensor, electronics and a battery of useful size, It wouldn't >>> take much more. The FF Sony compact is a good example, and , at a more >>> affordable price could be the deal. It would seem that we have reached a >>> time when the FF sensor compact is a possibility as the flange to film >>> plane distance problems seem to have been solved. I would think that >>> applying the same solutions to the E1 and 3 would make them truly >>> competitive. That camera was probably a little too soon and that was >>> what >>> made it too similar in size to conventional DSLR's. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- From: Richard Man >>> Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2012 1:29 PM >>> To: Leica Users Group >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Olympus XA (OT) >>> >>> >>> The XA was my first camera out of school. I still have it. The rewind >>> crank >>> broke so a few years ago, I bought another one, just because >>> >>> As I said earlier, I think the RX-1 is too little, too late, but if they >>> make a digital full frame XA, I will buy it, for up to 2012 $1500. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 9:03 AM, Howard Ritter <hlritter at bex.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Reading early releases on Sony's forthcoming ultrapremium-priced non-SLR >>>> non-interchangeable, non-zoom-lens finderless full-frame digicam, the >>>> RX1, >>>> I couldn't help but think about its nearest film equivalent, and one of >>>> my >>>> favorite past cameras, the little Oly XA. I'll bet a lot of LUGgers >>>> past a >>>> certain age used this little gem. How many of you still have yours? Use >>>> it? >>>> When I think about it, it just annoys me that this new, smallest FF >>>> digicam >>>> is twice the depth and box volume of the XA, and not pocketable. And >>>> that >>>> the smallest "serious" digicam, the Sony RX100, is the same size as the >>>> XA >>>> and yet can't manage a sensor that's more than one-third the dimensions >>>> of >>>> the XA's frame. >>>> >>>> [For those too young to have seen one, I'll describe it as the size of >>>> a >>>> pack of cigarettes (remember that antiquated comparison?), rugged >>>> plastic >>>> construction, sliding door covering the integral 35mm f/2.8 Zuiko lens, >>>> rangefinder focusing with a lever on the bottom of the lens, aperture >>>> selected with a vertically sliding tab on the front of the body, and >>>> aperture-priority autoexposure?with the shutter speed indicated by a >>>> needle >>>> in the viewfinder. But you had to set the ASA yourself. Powered by a >>>> watch >>>> battery in a recess in the bottom, and it takes a screw-on flash unit >>>> on >>>> one end if you need it. And it took full-frame 35mm pictures. The >>>> camera's >>>> almost exactly the same size as my Sony RX100, which has a collapsible >>>> pancake 3x zoom lens and is a few mm shorter?but which has a sensor >>>> that's >>>> about 35% of the linear dimensions of a 35mm frame and about 14% of the >>>> area. I started wondering where mine was and when I had used it >>>> last?must >>>> have been 10 years. I got it over 30 years ago when I was stationed >>>> with >>>> the USAF in Wiesbaden, Germany, and so many of my fellow members of the >>>> Wiesbaden American Ski Club got one too that it became the "official" >>>> trip >>>> camera of WASKI. Then, I came across it yesterday quite by accident >>>> while >>>> searching for something else somewhere entirely different. Serendipity. >>>> No >>>> film in it, unfortunately, but the battery still powers it up. So it's >>>> off >>>> to Walgreen's we go...] >>>> >>>> So I'm thinking, if anyone other than LUGgers would be willing to >>>> accept a >>>> non-zoom, integral-lens manual-focus camera with no built-in flash, in >>>> return for maximum pocketability, how small could a FF digicam be? Why >>>> can't it be the size of the XA and even include a RF? Obviously it >>>> would >>>> need a lot of electronics that the XA doesn't, but then the XA has all >>>> that >>>> space in the film cassette and takeup-reel chambers for circuitry and a >>>> big >>>> battery. The need to have light rays strike the sensor at as steep an >>>> angle >>>> as possible apparently imposes certain constraints on lens design, and >>>> therefore size, but then a FF CMOS sensor is so sensitive that you >>>> could >>>> obviously settle for an f/4 lens, as is the case with FF DLSRs with >>>> typical >>>> zooms, and maybe correct for the light fall-off far from the axis in >>>> software, which should loosen the constraints. The Sony RX1 is a step >>>> in >>>> this direction but the body is about 1 cm larger in height and width >>>> than >>>> the RX100, and the big lens gives the camera twice the depth?without >>>> being >>>> interchangeable, or a zoom, or f/1.4. >>>> >>>> I'm just sayin'. >>>> >>>> ?howard >>>> >>>> ______________________________**_________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See >>>> http://leica-users.org/**mailman/listinfo/lug<http://leica-users.org/mailma >>>> n/listinfo/lug>for more information >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> // richard >>> <http://www.richardmanphoto.**com<http://www.richardmanphoto.com> >>>> >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See >>> http://leica-users.org/**mailman/listinfo/lug<http://leica-users.org/mailman >>> /listinfo/lug>for more information >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See >>> http://leica-users.org/**mailman/listinfo/lug<http://leica-users.org/mailman >>> /listinfo/lug>for more information >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Don >> don.dory at gmail.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information