Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/11/24

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Olympus XA (OT)
From: mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 21:20:22 -0500

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




Replies: Reply from billcpearce at cox.net (Bill Pearce) ([Leica] Olympus XA (OT))
In reply to: Message from ricc at embarqmail.com (Ric Carter) ([Leica] Olympus XA (OT))