Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] rangefinders

Subject: Re: [OM] rangefinders
From: "Windrim, Brian" <brian@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:08:13 -0000
Hi all,

a few months ago I solicited the list's opinions regarding the
relative merits of the XA, XA4 and Mju-II/Stylus Epic and several of
you were kind enough to reply.

As the subject of these little Oly's (and others) has come up again it
seems an appropriate time to share my own (highly subjective) conclusions.

The XA.
I've owned and used an XA for about 12 years and have found it very
dependable, plus it's a marvellous design. I was inclining away
from it mainly on account of other people's reservations about its
lens quality (I'll admit it can go a bit soft in the extreme corners)
and was looking for something better to use for colour slides while
retaining the XA for 400iso B&W.


The XA4.
I found a used XA4 in reasonable condition (though not cheap) from
MXV. Although physically very similar to the XA it doesn't have quite
the same feeling of quality, mainly because its clamshell cover slides
stiffly on plastic whereas the XA's runs smoothly on ball-bearings.

It's lens is sharp and contrasty but, as C.H.Ling warned me, the
vignetting is severe. So much so (I found) as to preclude the use of
slide films as I seemed to be getting over-exposure at the centre of
the frame and under-exposure at the edges. Even allowing for this the
auto exposures seemed variable compared to what I was used to from the
XA.

(Note: I wrote the above before reading Phillip Franklin's posting
about the XA4, I may now have to re-assess the cause of my difficulties.)

The barrel distortion that Alex mentioned didn't trouble me.


The Mju-II/Stylus Epic.

This is Olympus's spiritual successor to the XA, and (at last) has a
lens to rival that of the Yashica T4/T5. In addition, having never yet
owned a camera with autofocus, motorised winding or integrated flash I
was attracted to it for the sheer novelty value.

Interestingly, the use of autofocus may be one of the factors that
make the quality of the Mju-II's lens possible, as the focus motor can
rack the lens out for exposure, rather than the lens designer having
to contend with the short lens-to-film distance of the XA.


Conclusions so far:

I'm keeping the XA as my 'carry everywhere' camera, but it may
alternate between slide and B&W. I find it very quick to use and the
results are good enough for me.

As soon as I can find a 25A(red) gel I'm going to try fitting a
behind-the-lens filter to the XA4 for B&W and IR use (inspired by
George's arrangement on his OM1). I reckon that the shape of its lens
chamber is ideal for this.

I got my girlfriend a Mju-II Limited for Xmas (nice packaging!) and,
of course, tried it out first. Although it's nice in many ways - and
the results were good - I'm not presently inclined to get one myself
as I missed the focussing and exposure controls of the XA too much and
*hated* having to remember to switch the flash off every time I opened
the lens cover.


Other makes (heresy):

Yashica T5:
Many of my friends have T4s but compared to the
Mju-II it is bigger and has a longer autofocus lag.

I've seen the Mju-II described as "The Olympus Fan's T5"

Ricoh GR1:
The husband of one of my colleagues just bought her one for Xmas.
It's gorgeous! If I was less immersed in photography (i.e. didn't need
the capabilities of an SLR) and had to pick one camera to carry
everwhere and use for everything, this would probably be it.

Contax T:
The original Contax compact, sort of a cross between a Minox 35 and
an XA, but with the 38mm Sonnar that the T2 inherited. Not many made
and I've never even seen one. But nice if you could find/afford one, I
expect.


End of ramblings.

-Brian

< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz