XA2 test roll

[olroy2044]

Finally shot a test roll (Fuji Superia 400) after replacing the seals on my Oly XA2. Results are still mixed.Some shots came out OK---

Roadster parked in front of my neighbor's house



(It sounds as good as it looks!)

--and others stink!

Light was at my back, and the camera was set to "mountains"


A little past mid-day:


Light leaks are gone, but the image quality seems unpredictable. Comments, please

Roy

[PeterW]

Umm. Bit of a mixed bag, Roy.

It's difficult to judge the definition properly in the first two shots because of the high contrasty lighting and the glare coming off the yellow paintwork. I'd put it as passable but not outstanding. Love the car, though. If it needs rear wheels that wide to get the power down to the ground it must have LOTS of power! I bet it goes like stink!

The third shot, if you don't mind my saying so, is awful. It can't be point of focus because there doesn't seem to be sharp point anywhere in the picture.

It's almost as if the lens isn't quite in register with the film plane, but I can't think why. Only slim possibility I can think of is that for some reason the pressure plate isn't holding the film quite flat and close in the film plane. If so, the unpredictable results could depend on how much tension there is on the film after winding on.

In the fourth picture the definition is again only so-so. Not up to usual Oly standard.

This shot's also got me guessing. Or my eyesight's going potty.

The lady with the green top seems to be taking a picture with a large camera on a tripod. But why is she having to poke the lens round the awning pole? Why not move a few feet to one side?Also, one front leg of the tripod seems to change halfway down into a guy rope.

Then, over on the left of the picture, there appears to be a lady standing on her head with her dress defying the law of gravity. A demonstration of yoga and the power of meditation?

Very strange. Or have I finally flipped?

A puzzled PeterW

PS: Second thought. I once had similar results from a lens which was dirty inside. Does it look quite clean and clear when you shine a light through it? Or just maybe someone has taken it apart to clean it and hasn't got it back quite spot on. Any marks on the lens rings indicating that someone might have been inside it?
PW

[Deleted]

I had an XA2 that I got after reading the on line praise of the XA models. I never did get what I considered great shots out of the XA2. But later I picked up an XA with the f2.8 lens and rangefinder focusing. THAT little camera did impress me. The images it produced were much better. Maybe I just had a bad example of the XA2.

Wayne

[olroy2044]

The pix of the roadster are merely the best of a generally poor lot of images. If you look at the shadow areas, they look like the Fuji film is very grainy. The lens looks clear and clean, and there are no signs of disassembly.

Wayne, if you had a poor example of an XA2, I must have its brother!

Peter, the definition of #4 is so bad, that I understand your puzzlement. If I hadn't been there behind the camera, I would not be able to tell much about it.

To say I'm disappointed in the camera is putting it mildly. My 110 Pentax returns much better results. The Oly's a neat little camera, but I'm afraid it's a "shelf-queen."

Oh yeah, Peter, it does go "like Stink!' Roy

[John Parry]

To be honest, these look to me as though the aperture has been shut down a couple or more stops Roy. Where did you get them processed? The lack of contrast and the graininess (really untypical of the Fuji 400 except at seriously low light levels) would seem to bear this out. Automatic processing of heavily under exposed shots would do this.

Peter. I'm sorry, but the only thing wrong with the tripod would appear to be that the lady hasn't got one of the legs pointed towards the subject, so she seems to be mounting the third leg. To me, the photo is completely devoid of headstanding gravity defiers. You haven't been reading James Thurber recently have you? If not, there's a distinct possibility that your eyesight has gone potty. Or you may have finally flipped. I wouldn't like to say...

Regards - John

[scott]

I'd say don't give up, yet, Roy.

I think the XA2 is a pretty handy camera. I probably use mine more than any other camera I have-- for one thing, because it is so easy to carry. I almost always have it in my backpack when I go out.

The exposures I get with mine almost always look spot on. I seem to get my best shots in the evening, in full shade, etc., perhaps because the lens flares so easily, and you can't use a lens hood. I almost never bother with the flash.

I do make some focus errors, so I will sometimes make an extra exposure at the next focus setting just for good measure.

Here's some of my better results with the XA2.

www.flickr.com/photos/21506490@N00/2242661558/in/set-72157594353169321/

While leaning out a 5th floor window a few years ago, trying to get a shot of the busy street market below my apartment, I dropped an XA2. It landed on a tin roof at the 1st floor. After that, the auto exposure still worked fine, only the focus was permanently stuck at "close". So I got another.

[PeterW]

Roy,

Looking again at your XA2 pics I think maybe John is on the right track. The pictures look suspiciously like over-pushed processing because of underexposure. This would account for the clogged shadows in the first two pics and the general veiled look of the last one.

More as an exercise than anything else I copied the last one (the one that puzled me) and had a play with it in Photoshop. Of course, even PS can't put in definition that isn't there, even though it can interpolate between pixels.

I took it into Labcolor and played with the channels to see if I could improve what's sometimes called 'perceived sharpness' or 'first impression sharpness'. In other words, does it look reasonably sharp until you look closely.

One thing I found was a slight darkening in the corners of the picture, not very marked but definitely there, hidden by the general veiled look. I took out some of this with local dodging, but if I went any further it desaturated the colour too much.

I didn't really do anything that couldn't be done in a conventional 'wet' darkroom, but it was a lot easier to do it on the screen.

I don't really know whether or not I 'improved' the picture. To my eyes it looks a little more pleasing, but even PS can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Maybe someone with more knowledge of PS could have done it better, but that's not the point. You should be able to expect better results than these from an XA2.

Anyway, here it is. What do you think?



PeterW

[julio1fer]

Something is wrong here. Either the lens is dirty or exposure is way off. How do the negatives look?

You should get MUCH better results from a good XA2. Mine died a cruel death, falling into a stone pavement with a loud, sickly noise. I got an XA as replacement but still miss the much simpler XA2.

[olroy2044]

Thanks everybody for the comments. After getting over a severe case of frustration with the little camera, I'm going to work with it some more.

Peter, the pic you worked over does look better, but it still is pretty crappy. I too think that John is on the right track. Went back and looked at all the shots from the camera, both before and after installing new seals. They all have the distinctive look of heavily pushed processing. The negs do also. Should have spotted it right away.

Loaded up again w/400 film and set speed at 200. We'll see what happens.

Scott, your photos were very encouraging! Nice!

Roy

[casualcollector]

They look very underexposed to me, Roy. Do a whole series with 200 speed film then set 50, 100, 200, 400, 800. That will give you five shots ranging from two stops under to two stops over. With four subjects at different times of day, tat should be a good test roll.

Good to see a Ford engine in the Model A! Peter, depending on state of tune there's anywhere from 200 to 300 SAE net horsepower turning those back tires.

Bill