>I couldn't bring
>myself to buy a camera with a 40mm scale focusing lens. I'm too much of a
>stickler. If it were a 24mm lens, I could see it
I agree. I wouldn't trust scale focusing for anything longer than 21mm.
That's why I didn't buy the Minox several years ago.
I like rangefinders _a lot_. One of the things I like of my XA is that it
fits perfectly in my hands. In fact, I can do handheld shots at about 1/4
sec. with usually good results. See
<http://www.supercable.es/~guesas/zuiko/handheld.jpeg> and an enlargement
at <http://www.supercable.es/~guesas/zuiko/detail.jpeg>, taken with my XA,
f/4 (or 5.6), 1/4 sec, Fuji Superia 400.
The other rangefinder I've got is a Yashica Electro 35-GSN - somewhat big,
but quieter than the XA. Ergonomically speaking, it's a nightmare ;-), but
this camera allows me to do good handheld shots at about 1/15 (I think).
Focusing is extremely precise, too, and its lens (45mm F1.7) seems _way_
sharper than any of my other lenses - Carl Zeiss included.
I haven't seen any pictures from a Rollei 35, but I think Zeiss lenses will
outperform the optics in the XA. I own a Tessar (45mm F2.8) and a Sonnar
(135mm F2.8) in SLR mount, and they're really outstanding, especially the
Tessar. The 35mm F2.8 lens in the Minox is a Tessar, too, and the old Zuiko
Bellows-Macro 20mm F3.5 is a reversed Tessar!
However, the XA lens is very good. It may be slightly soft at f/2.8, but
still makes _great_ pictures. I also have a Ricoh GR-1, whose optics may be
better technically (esp. wide open), but pictures are somewhat dull. I
prefer the XA... except for parties! BTW, the GR-1's passive AF has no 'AF
OK' LED, but a set of icons in the viewfinder indicating approximate
focusing distance (zone). However I get some pictures defocused :-(
...
Carlos Santisteban
<cjss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<cjsantis@xxxxxxxx>
< 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 >
|
