Easy, Fast And Fun - At f2.8!

[@Gyuudon-enjoyer]

I’ve been using my XA for 12 years, got it used. I’ve had zero problems with it and some of my best photos. The RF patch has always been a little dim, but I taped a yellow gel over the window and it’s served me well.

[@korysmouse3800]

the XA2 has an f3.5 lens. The XA range finder version, on the other hand, has an f2.8. I have both and they’re great cameras.

[@davidmill7289]

Just had the scans back from my Olympus AF10 costing £20 and it’s as sharp as anything. A true point & shoot fully auto, with only 5 focus points that the camera can select from. 35mm f3.5 - the lens is obviously in very good condition. Definitely exceeded my expectations.

[@zenography7923]

These little cameras can be surprisingly good, lots of fun too

[@michaelmiller641]

Great video! Thanks! I've had one or two of those compact cameras, they have all konked out eventually! But have given good service at the time! I'm mainly digital now though!

[@andrewwilkin1923]

Thanks for the video. The Canon Sure Shot is not DX coded, at least mine isn't. The ASA setting is on top of the lens throat. It too shows you where you've focussed, albeit after having taken the shot. Main complaint is it's a very noisy camera when it winds on! Have an XA2 and love it. Did have a Mju II as well but took advantage of it's soaring price and sold it.

[@bob4chelsea]

Thank you for another enjoyable video. I admit to being something of a Konica enthusiast and would just like to point out that the Konica C35 AF as opposed to the version that you reviewed (the C35MF) is almost identical except for two factors. 1) the C35AF does not have motor wind and 2) It is cheaper! As an aside, the C35AF was (I think) the first consumer grade camera with auto focus). Both are excellent cameras; fun to use and produce very good results. Keep up the good work!

[@tomislavmiletic_]

I had mju2 and I still have mju1, but I rarely use it - focussing is OK, but exposure control at least on my copy is less impressive. Recently I bought a camera (almost) as pocketable, an Olympus 35RC over which I have total control. And it can operate without the battery...

[@caw25sha]

I've never taken much notice of the market for 35mm compacts and I'm surprised how expensive they are. The sort of people who watch this channel might prefer an SLR and there are plenty from the final late 1990s/early 2000s generation with auto everything, so as easy to use as a compact. Often as cheap or cheaper, even including a standard prime or standard zoom.

[@zenography7923]

True enough, many of them really nice too

[@bcostin]

I like the XA2 zone focusing system. It's a spiritual ancestor to Ricoh's "snap focus" and works for a lot of the same situations. The slightly rarer XA4 is my favorite pocket film camera. Also zone focus, but it has a 28mm lens which has even more DOF. BTW, the XA1 is, confusingly, a quite different camera from the original (no number) XA rangefinder. The XA1 uses the similar body shell but it's a very simple fixed-focus model that uses a selenium light meter and an automatic mechanical shutter. No batteries at all. A little like an Olympus Trip and an XA2 had a baby. It's pretty fun to use as a point-and-shoot.

[@caw25sha]

From this video I get the impression that at larger apertures there are "dead zones" which aren't covered by any of the focus settings. Not surprising really but it's a significant drawback.

[@williamsiviter8760]

Thanks

[@zenography7923]

Many thanks, appreciated!

[@caw25sha]

You can get a little gadget for retrieving the end of the film. Bit fiddly to use and might need two or three attempts but it'll do the job eventually.

[@Magnetron692]

A 35mm film retriever. I have one and it works very well! Takes a bit of practice.

[@zenography7923]

I find them tricky to use to be honest, about a one in ten success rate in fact!

[@michaelmiller641]

I've got a film canister "can opener!"

[@chrisnovakowski9827]

The lens cover on the Canon Sureshot will only open when batteries are installed in the camera. Your camera probably works correctly.

[@Lawman212]

I would be interested to hear more about lens designs, and the value of each. Is a triotar a capable lens, or are there too many downsides for example.

[@zenography7923]

Thanks for the suggestion!

[@randallstewart1224]

I well made triplet (Triotar) is a decent snapshot camera, and will perform well optically if kept in the F 8.0 range. The number of elements is often an indicator of optical quality, but not always. The Oly XA mounts a 35mm 6-element lens, and is yet one of the all-time dog-lenses on any 35mm camera. Why? Because the lens was designed with a minimum back-focus to cram the lens into the thin camera body shell without "popping out" for use like most P-n-S models. The trade-off was a lens with huge vignetting, gross lack of sharpness outside the dead-center of the image, straight lines which curve, and so on. Neither the camera nor lens were designed for optical quality, but rather to be convenient for snapshots, i.e., 3x5s from Walmart. Yet, many discussions of the XA extol its lens virtue based only on the fact that the lens has 6 elements, occasionally favorably comparing its performance to a Leica, presumably by a blind photographer..

[@sclogse1]

These small lenses had the advantage cell phone lenses have. Lots of depth of field. Consider the Contax T2, which only has the advantage of f stops. It costs a fortune, but the lens is equalled by the Panasonic DMZ cameras. Which go for about 90 bucks..

[@FilmPhotography]

Having had a Mju ii back in the day there is NOTHING superb about them. They were a great way to waste film, because they would very often miss focus and still shoot. If you did get the to focus correctly they could take an age to hunt before being focused. On the up side the lens was sharp. They now have this colt status which hyper inflates the value. Save your money buy something else!