Says:To what kinds of situations are the XA and XA2 camera best suited? I'm still about to pull the trigger on a XA or XA2, and wondering which would be a better bet for me. I am primarily doing landscape and night/low light photography, and I want to do more street and stealth/candid photography as well. Please feel free to look at my Flickr photos to see what I like to do. Any thoughts?11:30PM, 17 January 2007 PDTsays:The XA is the superior beast. Better lens, apperture priority etc.I would say that the XA 3 much better than XA 2.The asa goes to 1600 rather than 800 and the 1.5 backlight adjustment are the two main performance differences that are both really important to me.ages agosays:Since the XA2 does not have DX sensing, you can fiddle the film speed setting to do backlight compensation. The XA3 got DX sensing, so they added the compensation function from the XA.The faster setting on the XA3 is nice, but it lets you shoot with film just one stop faster than the XA2, not really a killer advantage.The XA2 is usually a lot cheaper than the XA.

• Olympus Xa Instructions
• Instruction Manual

Decide to spend the extra money for the XA only after you decide that you need the rangefinder and/or the aperture priority capability.When I carry a camera for careful shooting, composed shots at shrines or temples, for example, I carry my XA. When I want candids on the trains or around town, I carry my XA2. When I go out on a sunny day with a long lens on my Minolta, I slip my XA1 in my pocket. Under those conditions I can use it one-handed to get some nice shots.XA:XA1:XA2:ages agosays:It depends what you want it for really. The XA2 is a great, simple, fun little camera with zone focusing (a bit like a well-priced, better made Lomo) while the XA offers much more control, accurate focusing and a faster lens - it's a proper rangefinder.Personally, I was about to buy an XA2 as a fun camera when I saw an XA on Ebay with buy-it-no for less than I was prepared to spend on the XA2.

Can't say I've regretted it one bit.ages agosays:I've had an XA2 for years, and have taken it with me everywhere. Around town, to restaurants, bars and parties, on trips, on my honeymoon, even to my own wedding.

It's a great camera, and the fact that it's not a full rangefinder doesn't take away from that. You can slide it into a jacket pocket, pull it out on the train, take a shot and have it back in your pocket before anyone knows what happened. I really can't speak highly enough about the XA2. It's a great camera, not a toy in the least, and I feel that my photography fundmentally changed and improved once I started using it. I'm not saying that all that matters is the camera, but that one is such and unbridled pleasure to use that I was able to have fun with photography in a way i didn't before, and was able to start thinking about things differently.like wrh said, the exposure compensation doodad on the XA and XA3 isn't that big a deal, when you can just mess with the ISO dial a little.i bought an XA a couple of months ago, and it, too, is a great camera, and I love it, but i think for certain situations, like the ones you describe, the ease of the XA2 might be a better bet. I just think it might be easier to take a low light shot or a quick candid shot without having to worry about adjusting the aperature or the focus too much.

That's just me though, you might have your own ideas.that XA glass, though, wow.Originally posted ages ago.Scott L. Edited this topic ages ago.says:Buy them both. The XA is a sublime camera.

The XA2 is superb and cheap as chips. Carry them both wherever you go; they're small enough.ages agosays:xa. The poor mans leica. Maybeages agosays:I also have both, and i pretty much agree with Scott L.' S opinion.ages agosays:does the xa vignette likle the xa2 seems to do in bright light?ages agosays:not having bought the xa, i can't comment.

But the xa2 is sweet. I took it with me to malaysia and hongkong and ended up sneaking shots out of cars and of people, which actually turned out quite well (have a look at for examples).it is very quick to pull out of your pocket and shoot, and because it's so quiet, nobody's the wiser.yeah, ditto to scott l.ages agosays:I also have both XA & XA-2. For quick, you want the 2. While the XA has a faster lens, the RF patch has faded on most of them. Takes a bit more time to focus properly.

For night photography, the XA-2 with ASA 800 film works quite nicely IMO.Love 'em both!:-Dages agosays:Ken Rockwell.As for the differences in speed, f/2.8 vs. F/3.5 is less than one stop. I don't know that I would pay the price differential for an XA over an XA2 just to get a fraction of a stop of speed. Dragon defense clash of clans.

(And yes, I know there are other differences, but I'm just talking lens speed here.)ages agosays:Get the XA. If you want point and shoot convenience, just set it to the red indicators for focus and f/stop (8 feet and f/5.6 I think). This is what I do.ages agosays:I have only got an XA (I'm amazed at how many people own several different cameras in the XA range), so I can't comment on the XA2. I'm well chuffed with my camera and I reckon it should suit your purposes admirably, but then an XA2 owner may well say the same about their camera too: horses for courses. If you don't already have one I suggest you invest in a mini tripod; they go well with the XA series. In fact for low light and/or night time photography I reckon the XA/XA2 plus mini tripod would be a killer combination, given how small and un-noticable it would be.Edward Olive Has Too Many Stupid Cameras:Yes the XA does vignette, I think it has something to do with the apeture only having two blades, maybe.Originally posted ages ago.Stu64 edited this topic ages ago.says:i have both the XA and XA2 and i tend to find myself taking the latter out a lot more. I like quick photography and don't really like fiddling around with the settings on the XA when i want to just capture a moment.

The XA2 hasn't let me down when getting a great shot yet, it is such a great little partner in crime when you just want to be out on the street and capture the action quickly and discreetly.if i were wanting to take more careful composed shots, i would definitely bring out the XA, so i can fiddle with aperture and such. You can get such nice results that way with depth of field and such, which you can't do as easily in the XA2.the richness of colour in both of them are amazing. You can see my XA set here::)Originally posted ages ago.super charz edited this topic ages ago.says:The XA has 6-element which means better light correction which makes is capable of more '3D-ish' images. The lens is also faster at 1:2.8 which makes it capable to be used indoor or with less light outdoor.The XA has 4-element lens which is not saying that it's bad (I've seen 4-element lenses do 'magic' to the pictures as far as bokeh is concerned), but it does have less 'correction'. The lens is also slower at 1:3.5 making it less likely to produce sharp pictures in low-light.I am currently running my first roll through my XA2, so I'll have hands on comparison soon.ages agosays:Apart from the flexibilty of the xa's functions for composing shots with time on your hands, i've found that the xa2 is far better when taking 'hipshot, street and candid pics. As long as you remember to select the correct zone focussing.

I have had both an xa(stolen during a train journey) and still use my xa2. I think along with the ricoh r-10 the xa2 is the greatest 35mm auto exposure compact ever made. And yes the light fall-off (vignetting) is far more noticable in bright sunshine/lighting than my xa.ages agosays:I'm finding this thread really interesting. I bought an XA from ebay (£27) a while ago, and am till on my first roll (I have too many cameras and not enough time! Time to switch to 24exp I think:p ). However, my in-laws visited last weekend and brought down a couple of old cameras for me. One was an absolute mint XA2 (even the light seals seem in good nick!).

It had the A-11 flash that I was missing from the XA, so that was a bonus. It even had the original warrenty card all filled in from 1985, and the instruction booklet!I always thought the XA2 was kind of like the poor relation, but after reading this thread I can't wait to get out and about with it - something I can just put up to my eye and shoot, without worrying about settings, is great. I'm really slow and fumbly usually:pages agosays:The XA2 has been in my pocket all winter long and I've made some of my best ever pictures with it. In England, I find I like the images it makes with faster film - and mostly black and white. For those darker months, I keep it loaded with Kodak Tri-X rated at 800. Gets me through most murky situations and on the Tube.

I also went through a phase of using Kodak Portra 800 / Fuji Pro 800z in the thing (rated at 640-ish) to capture twilight scenes.I find it meters most-accurately when the lighting is fairly even or there is one distinct light source (just off the centre) that gently falls off. Light filtering down a staircase or glowing lamps on the sides of buildings, that sort of thing.My XA2 tends to choke in dimly-lit or murky situations - even when I manually try and overexpose.I'm only just beginning to see the limits of the plastic lens and will probably upgrade to a point and shoot rangefinder with a 35mm lens to approximate the now-familiar field of view of the XA2.ages agosays:again with the plastic lens. Why do some people think the XAs have plastic lenses? They don't.ages agosays:Eek - do they not?

I'm going to have to apologise to the XA2 when I return home this eve!ages agosays:well I know Olympus were ahead of their time - but they would have to been extremely advanced to be able to make four-element plastic lenses for the XAs back then.(the XA has a 6 element lens)ages agosays:Good point, really. I wore glasses with plastic lenses in the late 80s and they were new and advanced then.My poor XA2 will be very upset when she leans how I've slandered her.ages agosays:A little update - I'm certainly finding the XA2 easier when out and about than the XA.

As with most people's, the rangefinder patch on my XA is very dim, and even with the little square of black tape on it I still find it slow to focus. Much easier to focus on the fly with the XA2.Plus, I'm pretty sure my meter is out of whack on the XA.

Although my stupid slow brain took ages to realise: I couldn't quite work out why it was wanting to take everything at about 1/30 even when at 2.8. It struggles to get up above 1/60. I'll have to take it in for a CLA, although I'm loathe to spend more than I paid for it in the first place. Saying that, at least I would know I have a cracking little camera that'll last for years once I do.ages agosays:I decided I wanted an XA3 (the ISO 1600 advantage over the XA2) then when on ebay I saw an XA going cheap so ended up bidding on that too.I now have both an XA and an XA3.Too early to say which I prefer (am still on the first roll of film in the XA3).Current thoughts are maybe to carry both, one with bw and one with colour.I expect though I will settle on one at some point.ages agosays:catherine, are you sure the XA is actually having a hard time getting above 1/60? That might sound like a silly question, but check this out.the way I understand it, the XA has two light meters.

One that actually does the exposing, and one that does nothing but control the indicator needle in the viewfinder.the needle in my viewfinder is always wrong, very wrong, like four stops low, but the photos are all exposed correctly. For a test, when you have no film in the camera, you can point it at some very bright light source and trip the shutter. Ignore the needle, and just listen to the opening and closing of the shutter.

How does it sound? Try it again at something dim. If you're getting a wide range of shutter speeds when you fire away at walls and windows and the refrigerator, in addition to strange looks from friends, chances are it's just the needle that's messed up.if your camera's having the same trouble mine is, it's really not a huge deal. I have no real plans of getting mine fixed, though i agree it'd be nice to have the needle report things correctly. I just have to pay a little bit of extra attention to where i have the f/stop doodad set and think about what i'm doing a little more. No big deal.Originally posted ages ago.Scott L.

Edited this topic ages ago.says:I don't know how many meters are in an XA, but I'll say that in the viewfinder I too see some unlikely numbers, but the exposure turns out well. Sometimes a little overexposed on high contrast scenes, but not as badly as I would expect from the needle.I think the important thing is that the needle does react to light somehow. I don't know how many meters there are, but I know there is only one photocell. A non-reactive needle would make me think that the photocell may be gone.ages agosays:Word from the superheros at diaxa.com is there's two photocells:'Metering system uses two CdS cells. Unmasked cell actually sets exposure; second cell behind diminishing series of fixed openings controls finder shutter speed needle setting.' Ages agosays:Wow, that's really helpful everyone, thanks:)I didn't think for a second the needle might work independently to the 'real' meter.I'll try and get to the end of this roll and send it in for processing. Let's hope it's just a wonky needle:)ages agosays:i would go 4 xa2.:Oages agosays:Wow!

Is that XA only? I've had an XA2 apart and I remember seeing just one cell.ages agosays:w r h - the second cell seems to be what controls the needle - since the XA2 has no needle in the viewfinder it wouldn't need a second cell:)ages agosays:yep.

This finally solves the mystery of the wandering needles.ages agosays:So it appears that everyone's in agreement about the XA-2?I'm bidding on an XA now. I figured the better glass, speed and rangefinder would be worth it. Does anyone at all think the XA is a better deal than the XA-2?ages agosays:i like both, my xa functions better than my xa2 and it tends to underexpose.ages agoprecious stone deleted says:I really think both are great.

But if you're secretly harboring lomo-lust over the unspeakable black russian, the xa does a damn good job of being a nice lomo methadone.The Xa makes some really nice shots with great depth of field.If you think you'll ever want to isolate a subject, or get some nice bokeh in your photos, you'll be pretty hard pressed to pull that off with an XA2.If you just want to point and click, save 30 bucks and buy a xa2, but if you're looking for more features, go xa. Either way they kick ass.ages agosays:Just a quick update: I got my first rolls back from both the XA and XA2. It must have just been the needle on the XA because everything is exposed just right:) To put it to the test I just loaded it with slide film - so we'll see how that turns out!The XA2 seems to be exposing fine too. I didn't get prints from either - I probably should have for the first rolls - so I'm going off the neg scans.

I.think. I see a slight difference in the quality of the pictures between the two, with the XA coming out on top, but it really is marginal. I took a photo of the same location at the same time with both so I might get those two negs printed and see how they look then without the magical wizardry of my scanning software.I really like the XA2 for its speed, but I think the XA might end up getting more use.Incidentally, there is a big difference in the viewfinders on my two cameras. The XA2's is far brighter, positively a joy to look through. In comparison, the XA's has a slightly bluish/magenta cast to it and everything seems dimmer.

Shame.ages agosays:Got my XA2 today (birthday) and it is an absolute joy. I never actually realised that they are so small! It can fit in my pocket and it's ready to go when ever needed.

I can tell that I am going to love this camera, i've got it loaded with TRI-X and I can't wait to see my results from it. I'm going to take this camera everywhere with me!ages agosays:I've had an XA for a while now, and it's a wonderful little camera - when it works. It's been very temperamental, so in anticipation of an upcoming sabbatical driving round France, I've just gone and bought myself an XA2 on ebay.

£16 inc postage. Can't wait to get my hands on the little beauty.ages agofew purpose deleted says:The quick and simple zone focus on the XA2 makes it ideal for candid street snapping.ages agosays:'Yes the XA does vignette, I think it has something to do with the apeture only having two blades, maybe. 'I love the way the XA vignettes at f2.8.ages agosays:Archiver, all I read is your first paragraph.' I am primarily doing landscape'.If you are serious about doing landscape buy yourself a 4x5 or larger view camera.

The XA cameras are for casual point and shoot, not landscapes.Cheers.ages agosays:Archiver also goes on to say 'I want to do more street and stealth/candid photography as well' and the XA family fits the bill well for that, a 4x5 not so much.ages agosays:I dunno - Alec Soth does street stuff with an 8x10 view camera. Not strictly speaking candid, I admit, but still.ages agosays:Get the XA - the rangefinder is heaps of fun. You can do more interesting stuff with it than you can with the XA2.ages agosays:4x5 view cameras may be little out of some people's price range. You can get by on good 35mm (velvia perhaps, or try a 25 panchromatic film if you like b+w), and medium format's even better, but even that starts to get pricey if you're trying to keep it under $1000.

Which is why I am using an ancient Tower-branded folding 120 camera, and have plans for kiev. If you really want to do large format (I know I do) there are some really good pinholes out there for much less than a view camera. You just have to be good with exposure.You could probably shoot one of today's panchromatic ISO 25 b+w films in an XA and make enlargements up to 12x16. Just remember it's slow.ages agosays:'You could probably shoot one of today's panchromatic ISO 25 b+w films in an XA and make enlargements up to 12x16. Just remember it's slow.' True, the XA and XA2 ISO settings scale goes down to 25.

But you have to jury-rig a filter holder for b/w filters.ages agosays:'True, the XA and XA2 ISO settings scale goes down to 25. But you have to jury-rig a filter holder for b/w filters. 'I'm not sure what kind of filters you need exactly, but jury rigging one might not be that tough.

A couple of months ago, I ran a roll of Kodak's infrared film through my XA2, which means I needed to slap a red filter over the lens.After lots of thinking and posting on flickr groups (this one, in fact), I decided to just take the filter i needed out of a Roscolux filter swatch book, which you can get at b&h for free (or maybe it was a penny).All you do is use some cellophane tape and tape the filter to the camera housing top to bottom, and across the lens, with just enough slack to let the door slide freely. You might need to just tape it to the bottom, and let it hang free at the top, holding it in place when you're taking photos.

The lens is small enough to be covered by this, though it's possible some unfiltered light'll get in on the sides.It wasn't ideal because the filters are really thin cellophane, so they'll get wrecked if you stick the camera in your pocket while it's wearing one, but otherwise, I think it worked out ok. You can see some of the photos if you want to.ages agosays:I know some people just hold filters like polarizers in front of the lens and it works fine for them. On the other hand, there are a number of third-party brands that make filter holders that screw into the tripod mount of compact cameras, and these are usually pretty effective.Then again, you don't.have. to use filters, though they will get better results.ages agosays:This discussion has been interesting to follow. The XA2 is one of my favorite cameras. I keep waffling on whether I want to get an XA or not.

I like the DOF control of true rangefinders but scale focus is definitely faster for grab shots, and I already have other compact RFs that are almost as small and convenient as the XA would be.Now, the wide-angle/macro XA4, that'd be another story. I think if I found an XA4 at a good price I'd be helpless to resist.ages agosays:Same story here.:DI use my XA2 far more than my excellent OM gear or my other cameras, and it usually gives me better pictures. But as I don't have any other compact rf's I really want an XA. But I'd like an XA4 even more. I shoot macro like crazy.ages agosays:if i have the time to play with the yellow spot to make the focusing perfect, i don't mind using a camera bigger than XA, especially when such bigger RFs can offer u bigger aperture and brighter viewfinder.

But I still love to have XA. The design is just great.

A real RF.For XA2, the combination of compact size plus zone focusing makes the cam outstanding for certain snapshot situation. It s the chemistry not found in XA.ages agosays:Interesting discussion. I've had my XA for about 6 months and I really like it but I've been in the market for a point and shoot no hassle compact. Yesterday I picked up an XA2 and went around town shooting like crazy. Already I think I favor the XA2 for this freedom that everyone else has already mentioned, however I have yet to see the results. Its so fun to just walk around, wind and shoot without worrying about exposure or focusing.

I also notice I waste rolls much quicker with this camera.ages agosays:i think xa2 is better than xa. Strange but true.ages agosays:I prefer the XA because it offers more control. As for the 'but the XA2 requires less thought/fidling' argument, you can achieve a similar sort of ease of use with the XA by presetting the focus and aperture appropriately. The technique, zone focusing, was widely used by photojournalists and street photographers 'back in the day'. The XA2 took the practice and designed it into the camera. So if you're comfortable with using your XA like that, or feel like you can learn it, you can use your XA very much as if it were an XA2 while still having all the features of the XA available to you should you want them.That said, the XA2 is a great camera as well.

If you don't think you'll ever want the full-on rangefinder focusing and aperture control features of the XA, there's no point in spending the extra money on them.ages agosays:A couple of weeks ago, I managed to get the XA2. In fact, I was just minutes late in getting a XA as well. I was at a large photographic market, and there were a load of XA2's on a table, as well as an empty space where about three XA's used to be.So far, I really, really like it. The zone focus makes taking photos really easy, just open, set and shoot. I would enjoy the DoF control of the XA, but for now, the XA2 is a real gem. I love the size and stealth factor, too. Exposure seems spot-on, which is a real bonus.

Olympus Xa Instructions

I'm on my second roll already and have had to slow myself down!ages agosays:I have a Ricoh 500G for fiddly 'XA' jobs. I suppose it's a bit like the Olympus RC, which offers a similar amount of control to the XA but in a less cramped way.

These cameras are so cheap these days there's no need to stop at one:-)ages agosays:Interesting thread, are all XA cameras plastic or metal?Cheers.Originally posted ages ago.Ben © edited this topic ages ago.says:Speaking about the XA and XA 3 that I have at hand, they're plastic but give a pretty reassuring sense of solidity.Edit: the film door is metal.Originally posted ages ago.Voxphoto edited this topic ages ago.says:Thanks Voxages agodependent value deleted says:I acquired an XA2 from a friend. And, although I'm a committed Trip 35 user, this little camera took the most popular photo I've ever posted on Flickr! There is a quality to the lens of this camera that is very unique-at least in its capacity to resolve light onto Kodak Ultramax 400 film. I include here a copy of the photo, which can be seen larger in my stream.But the point I want to make here is that the humble little XA2 is, in fact, a great camera capable of taking landscape photos you will be quite pleased with. My Trip35 has an f2.8 lens and, even though one would think that half stop is an insignificant difference, I have found a yawning gap between the low light performance of the two cameras, the f2.8 being way better. It may look insignificant on paper, but in real life it seems to make a helluva big difference. I can't say why.

And this is why I've thought about getting an XA, I think it would be a far better low light camera, more like my Trip which is fantastic in low light.ages agosays:Since the XA2's brightest aperture (f/3.5) is so close to the XA's brightest aperture (f/2.8), when both these cameras are taking pictures wide open, the Depth of Field should be almost the same. Therefore, why can't you just use the XA's rangefinder focusing system exactly like you use the XA2's zone focus system.

(just take the focusing of the XA and learn how divide the entire focusing by 3 and learn to be able to change the focus a certain amount so that you can change it a total of 3 times until you get to infitity). This should give the XA the same ease of use and quickness as the XA2 zone focusing with the ability to look through the viewfinder and use the rangefinder to double-check the focus whenever you can.Is this possible? It just seems like the main reason most people prefer the XA2 is the zone focusing, but I am skeptical that when taking pictures in bright light with the aperture wide open, that the XA would be a completely better choice because you can always make sure you are not missing the focus.ages agosays:anyone know what Im sayin?ages agosays:jeremy, if you look at your XA rangefinder's distance tab, you'll notice infinity, 3, 1.5, 1, and 0.85, the first three corresponds to the XA2's three zone focus markers.

You will also notice the aperture has 5.6 in orange. This is because 5.6 is designed to be the snap-shot aperture. Select your distace say 3 (red by the way, to also hint that it should be used in conjuction with the 5.6 as a snap shot setting) and f5.6. Close the shell, and next time just open shell and snap.ages agosays:Many times i stand for the same decisions,when i pack my daybag:XA or XA2.I have 2 XAs and 3 XA2s.The XA and the XA2 are two really different cameras for me.The XA feels like a real camera,with exactly focuspoint,selectable aperture and controlable DoF.It offers you mulitude photograpic techniques.

What is it?This is an Olympus XA2 scale focus point and shoot 35mm camera made by Olympus Optical Co., Ltd. Between the years of 1980 and 1986. It was a simpler and less expensive version of the Olympus XA camera released a year earlier. The entire XA series was very innovative, including many firsts in the point and shoot camera segment.

Instruction Manual

It can sometimes be hard to review a camera that is as well documented as the XA2. There were a ton of them made, and they’ve remained popular for their portability and excellent optics for decades after their release in the very early 1980s.Looking at the images above, I can wholeheartedly agree with pretty much everything I’ve read about the camera. Yes its portable, yes the lens is sharp, yes the metering system works well, and yes the zone focusing system is fast and easy to use. Most importantly, these cameras aren’t that expensive.

Compared to the original XA which can fetch well over $100 in working condition, I see XA2s in the $20 – $30 range quite often on eBay. The ‘2’ does not mean ‘second best’, the XA2 is just as capable of a camera as it’s big brother.If you were in the market for an XA but didn’t want to spend a lot of money, should you consider the XA2? In my time shooting the XA2, I never once thought that had I had a rangefinder, I could focus easier. In fact, the three focus zones and huge depth of field meant that I rarely had to think about focusing at all.

When I had my film developed and scanned in the negatives, I never once thought, “Gee, these images would have looked better with 2 more elements in the lens.”The XA is a great camera for sure. It’s historically significant, was designed by one of the best camera designers ever to exist, and pioneered several new features that would be common across the industry soon after it’s release.

The differences between the XA and XA2 seem drastic on paper, but with the “lesser model” you get the same compact size, the same excellent build quality, the same quality meter, an excellent 4-element lens, and a simplified focusing system that in many situations is actually faster than using a rangefinder. The XA2 represented a hell of a value not only when it was first introduced, but today as well.So yeah, if you’re in the market for a compact, and easy to use point and shoot, but don’t want the fuss (and noise) of early auto focus systems, the XA2 should be on your radar. My Final WordThe Olympus XA2 is a camera whose reputation precedes itself. This is a very well known and very highly regarded camera for a reason.

Perhaps the best characteristic of the camera is that it offers some of the simplicity of a 1980s point and shoot camera, in a very small package, with an excellent lens and meter, but with the control and speed of a manual focus camera. I’ll admit to not “getting” the appeal of this camera until I actually used it, but once I got it, I got it. The results from this camera speak for themselves. The XA2 is a popular camera for a reason. If you are on the fence about whether you should get one, just do it. They sell for considerably less than an XA and if you’re anything like me, once you actually have it in your hands, it will reveal itself to you as a truly special camera.ImagesHandlingFeaturesViewfinderFeel & BeautyHistoryAge2211210%Bonus+1 for overall excellence, the complete packageFinal Score10.0Additional Resources.