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: ricc at embarqmail.com (Ric Carter)
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 21:02:28 -0500
References: <297960A5-3DF9-4336-8846-C89B68165A9D@bex.net> <CAF8hL-ELh3h8JQKaR8LG2ZgwSkVevS_fiAH3QKtLT8sbzRRbfQ@mail.gmail.com> <4AE2104C3F7C4235BB606C9C813F72F8@billHP> <CA+3n+_kVDegWVmeMYHTQ6Ev345XdFR-6D0TVF9tqEsYytDbyCA@mail.gmail.com>

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/mailman/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



Replies: Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Olympus XA (OT))
In reply to: Message from hlritter at bex.net (Howard Ritter) ([Leica] Olympus XA (OT))
Message from richard at richardmanphoto.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] Olympus XA (OT))
Message from billcpearce at cox.net (Bill Pearce) ([Leica] Olympus XA (OT))
Message from don.dory at gmail.com (Don Dory) ([Leica] Olympus XA (OT))