Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/11/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]This camera the Olympus XA and my Rollei 35 made me realize I needed an M6 so I started planning how to get one. Connecticut Leicas I think of them as. I liked the directness of the window with no groundglass in which you can hear the click and see the pic with no blackout. A frame line. And the low key quality of them. And the optics tend to be more interesting. Mark William Rabiner Photography http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > From: Bill Pearce <billcpearce at cox.net> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 22:15:13 -0600 > To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Olympus XA (OT) > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See > http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information