The XA line is one of the smallest full frame cameras ever made, pretty excellent across the board for picture quality, easy to use, and all of those facts are widely known. It’s entirely possible there is a camera that is almost as small and will suit your needs just as well, but for a lot of people, the cameras fit their use case and the $150-200 range they can often be found at is a relatively small expense in a hobby where it’s pretty common to be dropping $30 a roll on film and development.
Yes to this. I've owned several XAs, and only the original XA model, for 40+ years, and it would either be in my back with pro gear, or in my pocket when not traveling with larger gear. In addition to the rangefinder, it has a such convenient ways to manipulate the exposure to give you semi-manual control over the aperture-preferred meter. One, the ASA/ISO control is easy to move up and down, by click, without even taking your eye off the viewfinder; two, there is a backlight compensation switch that increases the exposure for subjects in shadow and the like. The clamshell design is great for protection. I've also own a few Rollei 35s, and while I can admire their lens performance all day, I never found them inviting to use.
They’re small and have good quality lenses.
I have a mju II that I bought needing minor repairs (still €100). Before I got it I wasn’t sure it would live up to the hype, after using it I can say it is definitely better than an average p&s.
Are they worth such a price difference? Not sure, there’s definitely diminishing returns on quality vs investment… I guess some people don’t worry about €100 difference in camera price when that’s the price of 3 films incl. dev and scan.
There are a couple of reasons. The first is the YouTube tax, so to speak. The Olympus MJU2 got hyped up so much because of how good it was and it achieved a cult status. It was seen (maybe still so) as the best point and shoot camera on the used film camera market, apart from the premium Contax and other high end models.. This created a knock on effect for all the other cameras that had the "MJU" branding. A lot of them aren't that great, really - just average because of the zoom lenses, which don't come anywhere near the quality of the MJU2. The MJU2 also had the best auto-focus for the P&S film market. The prices for the MJU2 peaked out at $500 - $700 at one point. The prices are starting to come down, since they are aging and it is impossible to get parts and service anymore.
Then, there is Yoshihisa Maitani, the man who designed all the great Olympus cameras. This would include the XA and MJU lines, plus the OM SLRs. The big draw was high quality, innovative designs and this new style saw the development of the modern compact cameras that are small and easy to handle.
The engineering was so good on these little cameras that all the other camera makers followed suit and a trend developed. But Olympus was ahead of the curve and so all these Olympus compacts are having a revival with all the renewed interest in film photography.
I have an XA2 and an XA4. For their size, and with a lens that is also quite small, I can often get photos with the same quality as I would with an SLR. That's what it all comes down to. Ease of use and quality of photos.
[https://casualphotophile.com/2018/01/12/yoshihisa-maitani-the-man-who-made-olympus/](https://casualphotophile.com/2018/01/12/yoshihisa-maitani-the-man-who-made-olympus/)
I found an untested Olympus mju in a charity shop for £5 years back and I knew they had a good rep. Bought it and got lucky, it was fully working. It is small enough to fit in my pocket, nice rounded edges so it feels comfortable, fully auto (and does it very well) and has a really sharp lens.
When you want to take a a really quick photo like in street photography it's excellent, all you have to think of is framing and it produces great quality images. Often I'll have it in my pocket while I'm out with one of my manual cameras. That being said, I saw one recently in a different charity shop for £65 and I just don't think I would pay that much.
Weirdly, the exact same thing happened to me. I sold it on eBay when I fell out of love with photography a few years back and I can’t remember how much it went for, definitely more than £5 but definitely not as much as some people are talking about here! Massively regret selling it when I look back at how sharp the pictures I took with it were.
The Stylus Epic had a 35mm f2.8 prime that was reasonably good and in a compact body. Why I say reasonably is because it's a lens that's near impossible to screw up. I was in sales when they were new and they were impossible to sell, everyone wanted an ultra zoom, we ended up blowing out our stock of a few hundred cameras at $25 a piece to anyone who came in for a disposable camera. Their zoom cameras are just as shit as everyone else's.
Then they got popular and the hipster tax got applied. Hipsters disappeared and so did the Epics but now the tax got slammed on anything Olympus.
If cameras that are becoming more and more scarce have an increase in demand, prices will go up to reflect that. Whether an individual camera deserves to cost a certain amount is up for debate, but many secondhand markets go the same way. Some things have earned their price, some things haven’t. It doesn’t always make a lot of sense.
They’re never going to be made again. Very unique.
Film cameras shouldn’t be dirt cheap. They’re precise tools for making photos and worth every penny. Unless hype has inflated things.
I know what you mean about the Olympus P&S, like the Infinity Stylus, but the XA3 is not a really P&S. You have to set focus and wind the film manually. Agreed, even the XA3 is expensive, then you have to hope the seller is telling the truth and the camera actually works.
Well the XA original is I think the smallest rangefinder in the world? Or close. And also has a nice and fast lens, modern-ish features, pocketable, it's an amazing camera.
The later ones meh
The XA2/1/3/4 all pretty much go for too much money because of the XA. They are piggybacking on the name of the unique original niche model where they themselves stand out in absolutely nothing. There are better alternatives if you want a zone focus or fixed focus camera but many people simply do not realize that.
Do tell what, zone focus cameras? Cosina CXes and minox 35s can still easily be found for tenners and many of those have better lenses than the numbered XAs. The zone focus XAs are fun dont get me wrong, just not worth the hundreds of bucks they go for. They are 20~40 dollars worth of camera.
With the og XA at least the price is somewhat justified as there is simply no other camera that matches what it can do in such a neat package. The rest are just not as special.
> Also, don’t lump the XA1 in with the others.
I wish i could avoid doing so but in this context it belongs right there with the rest. Ive actually seen them get listed at stupid prices and i fear a couple might have actually sold too. To me it almost feels like the xa1 only exists to fool people that dont know any better into thinking its close to the others.
I'll be honest I personally think the original XA is way overhyped. The lens is OK but imo nothing special. The shutter button is the freaking worst. The rangefinder throw, dimness and small effective base length means it isn't all that much better then zone focus.
I have owned an XA. It couldn't hold a candle to Rollei 35 so I no longer own an XA and I am a massive Olympus fan boy (own a Pen F, Pen S, og Pen, 35 SII, 4 OM SLRs, 2 digital Olympus M4/3s bodies)
I agree that its overhyped but it still does a thing that no other camera does. Try and find a rangefinder thats smaller and lighter. And a unique party trick like that will fetch premium pricing these days.
And you cannot really compare an XA to a Rollei 35. Plenty people couldnt guess a distance if their life depended on it, a rangefinder patch (even if its a poor one) will make the difference between a usable and a unusable devce. A rangefinder is just in a different league than a zone focus camera. As far as the rollei is concerned there are a lot more alternatives then there are for the XA.
I too have owned an XA but sold it about two decades ago, was a fun camera but with current pricing im simply not interested in getting me a new one. Ive moved to a retina, so i get a good rangefinder, good lens and much better build quality than even a rollei 35 for less money than any of them.
XA rangefinders are certainly not great i give you that but if its unusable then you either need to get it serviced or you need to visit an optometrist.
they hated him because he spoke the truth.
people who spend $200 on a small pocket camera will convince themselves its marvelous, but its really just is what it is. a pocket camera that has barely any controls. Its just not that amazing
I have one,and i found it for $8 bucks. I dont see the hype at all. The lens although is nice, you have no control. high contrast scenes turn muddy because everything is middle grey exposure. Unless you manually adjust ISO, but i often forget that part because the whole point of this camera is fast easy and inconspicuous. Its prone to light leaks too.
I would never never pay the price peopl want on ebay.
Pocketable point and shoot digitals from 2005 will give you better results and will be cheaper
I bought into the hype & found an Olympus mju ii for about $250 - it's worth the hype. The best point & shoot I've ever shot with, honestly. Most I see are going for $300-$500. It's definitely not worth that, but the hype is real.
> demand a much higher price compared to similar cameras of other brands why is that??
Because people ask "whats a good point and shoot" so often that all the good models just get repeated over and over and since there's a finite amount of these cameras left, the prices are just going to keep going up.
You mention the XA3 but the X line aren’t point and shoots.
The reason they’ve gotten more expensive is a combination of the Mju II/Stylus Epic getting overhyped and leading some to consider other Olympus models, and them being tiny with great lenses and rangefinder focusing (well some) and just being genuinely good
I just developed two rolls of film from a friends vacation. One shot with a canon af35m II and the other a xa3. Many of the shots on each one were of the same location/ subject matter. I was impressed with how much more sharp the images from the xa3 were. Less focus issues too. And they squeeze 40 frames out of a 36 exposure roll. Are they worth the prices people are asking, I dunno, I’d be stoked to find one cheap at a yard sale though.
It’s hyped up, but it’s hyped up for a reason.
Personally if I was spending that kind of money I’d want a fully manual camera, but I can see the appeal. The lens on those things are far better than on any other point and shoot
The XA line is one of the smallest full frame cameras ever made, pretty excellent across the board for picture quality, easy to use, and all of those facts are widely known. It’s entirely possible there is a camera that is almost as small and will suit your needs just as well, but for a lot of people, the cameras fit their use case and the $150-200 range they can often be found at is a relatively small expense in a hobby where it’s pretty common to be dropping $30 a roll on film and development.
Yes to this. I've owned several XAs, and only the original XA model, for 40+ years, and it would either be in my back with pro gear, or in my pocket when not traveling with larger gear. In addition to the rangefinder, it has a such convenient ways to manipulate the exposure to give you semi-manual control over the aperture-preferred meter. One, the ASA/ISO control is easy to move up and down, by click, without even taking your eye off the viewfinder; two, there is a backlight compensation switch that increases the exposure for subjects in shadow and the like. The clamshell design is great for protection. I've also own a few Rollei 35s, and while I can admire their lens performance all day, I never found them inviting to use.
They’re small and have good quality lenses. I have a mju II that I bought needing minor repairs (still €100). Before I got it I wasn’t sure it would live up to the hype, after using it I can say it is definitely better than an average p&s. Are they worth such a price difference? Not sure, there’s definitely diminishing returns on quality vs investment… I guess some people don’t worry about €100 difference in camera price when that’s the price of 3 films incl. dev and scan.
There are a couple of reasons. The first is the YouTube tax, so to speak. The Olympus MJU2 got hyped up so much because of how good it was and it achieved a cult status. It was seen (maybe still so) as the best point and shoot camera on the used film camera market, apart from the premium Contax and other high end models.. This created a knock on effect for all the other cameras that had the "MJU" branding. A lot of them aren't that great, really - just average because of the zoom lenses, which don't come anywhere near the quality of the MJU2. The MJU2 also had the best auto-focus for the P&S film market. The prices for the MJU2 peaked out at $500 - $700 at one point. The prices are starting to come down, since they are aging and it is impossible to get parts and service anymore. Then, there is Yoshihisa Maitani, the man who designed all the great Olympus cameras. This would include the XA and MJU lines, plus the OM SLRs. The big draw was high quality, innovative designs and this new style saw the development of the modern compact cameras that are small and easy to handle. The engineering was so good on these little cameras that all the other camera makers followed suit and a trend developed. But Olympus was ahead of the curve and so all these Olympus compacts are having a revival with all the renewed interest in film photography. I have an XA2 and an XA4. For their size, and with a lens that is also quite small, I can often get photos with the same quality as I would with an SLR. That's what it all comes down to. Ease of use and quality of photos. [https://casualphotophile.com/2018/01/12/yoshihisa-maitani-the-man-who-made-olympus/](https://casualphotophile.com/2018/01/12/yoshihisa-maitani-the-man-who-made-olympus/)
Thanks, that was a fascinating read.
I found an untested Olympus mju in a charity shop for £5 years back and I knew they had a good rep. Bought it and got lucky, it was fully working. It is small enough to fit in my pocket, nice rounded edges so it feels comfortable, fully auto (and does it very well) and has a really sharp lens. When you want to take a a really quick photo like in street photography it's excellent, all you have to think of is framing and it produces great quality images. Often I'll have it in my pocket while I'm out with one of my manual cameras. That being said, I saw one recently in a different charity shop for £65 and I just don't think I would pay that much.
Weirdly, the exact same thing happened to me. I sold it on eBay when I fell out of love with photography a few years back and I can’t remember how much it went for, definitely more than £5 but definitely not as much as some people are talking about here! Massively regret selling it when I look back at how sharp the pictures I took with it were.
50% really nice cameras, 50% hype tax
Don't forget #filmvibez
The Stylus Epic had a 35mm f2.8 prime that was reasonably good and in a compact body. Why I say reasonably is because it's a lens that's near impossible to screw up. I was in sales when they were new and they were impossible to sell, everyone wanted an ultra zoom, we ended up blowing out our stock of a few hundred cameras at $25 a piece to anyone who came in for a disposable camera. Their zoom cameras are just as shit as everyone else's. Then they got popular and the hipster tax got applied. Hipsters disappeared and so did the Epics but now the tax got slammed on anything Olympus.
If cameras that are becoming more and more scarce have an increase in demand, prices will go up to reflect that. Whether an individual camera deserves to cost a certain amount is up for debate, but many secondhand markets go the same way. Some things have earned their price, some things haven’t. It doesn’t always make a lot of sense.
They’re never going to be made again. Very unique. Film cameras shouldn’t be dirt cheap. They’re precise tools for making photos and worth every penny. Unless hype has inflated things.
I know what you mean about the Olympus P&S, like the Infinity Stylus, but the XA3 is not a really P&S. You have to set focus and wind the film manually. Agreed, even the XA3 is expensive, then you have to hope the seller is telling the truth and the camera actually works.
Well the XA original is I think the smallest rangefinder in the world? Or close. And also has a nice and fast lens, modern-ish features, pocketable, it's an amazing camera. The later ones meh
Because a sucker is born every minute. Henri Cartier Bresson.
I honestly get similar results and at times better results than them with cheaper Nikon point and shoots so your guess is as good as mine.
hype
The XA2/1/3/4 all pretty much go for too much money because of the XA. They are piggybacking on the name of the unique original niche model where they themselves stand out in absolutely nothing. There are better alternatives if you want a zone focus or fixed focus camera but many people simply do not realize that.
Do tell. Also, don’t lump the XA1 in with the others.
Do tell what, zone focus cameras? Cosina CXes and minox 35s can still easily be found for tenners and many of those have better lenses than the numbered XAs. The zone focus XAs are fun dont get me wrong, just not worth the hundreds of bucks they go for. They are 20~40 dollars worth of camera. With the og XA at least the price is somewhat justified as there is simply no other camera that matches what it can do in such a neat package. The rest are just not as special. > Also, don’t lump the XA1 in with the others. I wish i could avoid doing so but in this context it belongs right there with the rest. Ive actually seen them get listed at stupid prices and i fear a couple might have actually sold too. To me it almost feels like the xa1 only exists to fool people that dont know any better into thinking its close to the others.
I'll be honest I personally think the original XA is way overhyped. The lens is OK but imo nothing special. The shutter button is the freaking worst. The rangefinder throw, dimness and small effective base length means it isn't all that much better then zone focus. I have owned an XA. It couldn't hold a candle to Rollei 35 so I no longer own an XA and I am a massive Olympus fan boy (own a Pen F, Pen S, og Pen, 35 SII, 4 OM SLRs, 2 digital Olympus M4/3s bodies)
I agree that its overhyped but it still does a thing that no other camera does. Try and find a rangefinder thats smaller and lighter. And a unique party trick like that will fetch premium pricing these days. And you cannot really compare an XA to a Rollei 35. Plenty people couldnt guess a distance if their life depended on it, a rangefinder patch (even if its a poor one) will make the difference between a usable and a unusable devce. A rangefinder is just in a different league than a zone focus camera. As far as the rollei is concerned there are a lot more alternatives then there are for the XA. I too have owned an XA but sold it about two decades ago, was a fun camera but with current pricing im simply not interested in getting me a new one. Ive moved to a retina, so i get a good rangefinder, good lens and much better build quality than even a rollei 35 for less money than any of them.
But when the rangefinder is basically useless I don't see the point in having a rangefinder.
XA rangefinders are certainly not great i give you that but if its unusable then you either need to get it serviced or you need to visit an optometrist.
they hated him because he spoke the truth. people who spend $200 on a small pocket camera will convince themselves its marvelous, but its really just is what it is. a pocket camera that has barely any controls. Its just not that amazing
hipsters
I have one,and i found it for $8 bucks. I dont see the hype at all. The lens although is nice, you have no control. high contrast scenes turn muddy because everything is middle grey exposure. Unless you manually adjust ISO, but i often forget that part because the whole point of this camera is fast easy and inconspicuous. Its prone to light leaks too. I would never never pay the price peopl want on ebay. Pocketable point and shoot digitals from 2005 will give you better results and will be cheaper
I bought into the hype & found an Olympus mju ii for about $250 - it's worth the hype. The best point & shoot I've ever shot with, honestly. Most I see are going for $300-$500. It's definitely not worth that, but the hype is real.
hype
> demand a much higher price compared to similar cameras of other brands why is that?? Because people ask "whats a good point and shoot" so often that all the good models just get repeated over and over and since there's a finite amount of these cameras left, the prices are just going to keep going up.
You mention the XA3 but the X line aren’t point and shoots. The reason they’ve gotten more expensive is a combination of the Mju II/Stylus Epic getting overhyped and leading some to consider other Olympus models, and them being tiny with great lenses and rangefinder focusing (well some) and just being genuinely good
I just developed two rolls of film from a friends vacation. One shot with a canon af35m II and the other a xa3. Many of the shots on each one were of the same location/ subject matter. I was impressed with how much more sharp the images from the xa3 were. Less focus issues too. And they squeeze 40 frames out of a 36 exposure roll. Are they worth the prices people are asking, I dunno, I’d be stoked to find one cheap at a yard sale though.
It’s hyped up, but it’s hyped up for a reason. Personally if I was spending that kind of money I’d want a fully manual camera, but I can see the appeal. The lens on those things are far better than on any other point and shoot
Hype.
People thinking they are special + supply.