[Leica] Re: Request for Advice

[drodgers@nextlink.net]

Bud

You wrote:
>>I have a problem with the raves about the XA's lens...It is a nicely made
and compact camera.  I just don't agree with you that the lens is all that
great.<<

I have an XA (w/A16 flash), and I couldn't agree more. The lens is pretty
flat wide open. Not surprisingly, stopping down to f5.6-f8 improves
contrast and corner resolution. Still, I'd rather use my Contax T2 at f2.8
than the XA at f5.6.

The XA has been out of production for some time. I heard several years ago
that parts were no longer available. If the meter goes the camera is
useless. That's a more important consideration than lens quality, IMHO.

Interesting about the XA, though. I have an 8X10 photograph hanging in my
office that I took with the XA. Out of the dozen or so prints on display
this one always generates the most interest. It's a landscape that I took
in Colorado about 10-years-ago.

What makes the photograph is the lighting. It was right at sunset (though
the sun was behind me) in a warm Autumn day. The sky looks as though a
polorizer was used, yet the land looks warm and serene. I've had
experienced photographers beg to know what filtration I used. They're
shocked to find out I didn't use any. Can't use filters on an XA, as you
know. I didn't even use strange filtration when I printed it. It's a
straight Ektar 125 print on Kodak Supra Paper.

I mention this because it continually reminds me that the quality of light
surpasses all else in the overall scheme of things. I have Leica,
Hasselblad, Contax and 4X5 photographs next to this little Olympus print.
But none generate the same amount of interest. Funny thing too; it was just
a snapshot.

Dave