SDN Photo-a-Day (Rules updates - read the OP)

[Simplicius]

That's still cool, though. You're getting quality through camera alone that I got with camera + telescope + low-power eyepiece, it looks like.

[generator_g1]

At 80x and the IS off, the view was jumping around so bad whenever you make the tiniest adjustment/movement to the tripod. It was one of those very small cheap tabletop tripods that also couldn't handle the weight of the camera.... The shot was done in ISO 100 btw.

Saving up for one of those portable Manfrottos / Giottos though...

[starslayer]

How long were your exposure times, both of you? With fine detail on astronomical targets, you run up against seeing issues; also, astronomical imaging is going to show you every little shake and vibration your mount has. You may want to try again using a webcam that can shoot video, believe it or not. Oh, and the imagers I know never use eyepieces, they just shoot at prime focus; I don't know whether that would help your Moon shots, Simplicius.

[Hawkwings]

As requested


I'd like to do something about that rock in the bottom right, it's a bit too light and draws attention away from the flowers.

[Simplicius]

How long were your exposure times, both of you? With fine detail on astronomical targets, you run up against seeing issues; also, astronomical imaging is going to show you every little shake and vibration your mount has. You may want to try again using a webcam that can shoot video, believe it or not. Oh, and the imagers I know never use eyepieces, they just shoot at prime focus; I don't know whether that would help your Moon shots, Simplicius.

Mine were 1/32 @ f/2.8 for the first and 1/64 @ f/4 for the second, ISO unknown. I am certainly well acquainted with shake, but my setup was very DIY: mount a small telescope on a very lightweight camera tripod; hold a cheap Kodak compact digicam up to the eyepiece, and try to hold the whole mess steady over the exposure time while also trying to swat mosquitoes.

I did come across the webcam book from Patrick Moore's Practical Astronomy series once, and it seemed like it would be an interesting read.

I'd like to do something about that rock in the bottom right, it's a bit too light and draws attention away from the flowers.

I would say the attention is generally stolen by the amount of frame that is just background, and how that is mostly in focus as well.

What is good about this is the way the lighting worked in your favor: the shape of the patch of light roughly corresponds to the shape of the flower patch. This kind of selective lighting is one way to control what receives attention in a photo; the object them is to make sure no other elements are doing the opposite.

[generator_g1]

How long were your exposure times, both of you? With fine detail on astronomical targets, you run up against seeing issues; also, astronomical imaging is going to show you every little shake and vibration your mount has. You may want to try again using a webcam that can shoot video, believe it or not. Oh, and the imagers I know never use eyepieces, they just shoot at prime focus; I don't know whether that would help your Moon shots, Simplicius.

I was on night mode, 80X digital zoom, f/8, the exposure time I didn't notice. I just set the timer to countdown 5 secs after I pressed the shutter button. Also the Canon SX10 IS is a P&S camera not a DSLR.

[starslayer]

Mine were 1/32 @ f/2.8 for the first and 1/64 @ f/4 for the second, ISO unknown. I am certainly well acquainted with shake, but my setup was very DIY: mount a small telescope on a very lightweight camera tripod; hold a cheap Kodak compact digicam up to the eyepiece, and try to hold the whole mess steady over the exposure time while also trying to swat mosquitoes.

I did come across the webcam book from Patrick Moore's Practical Astronomy series once, and it seemed like it would be an interesting read.

Those are pretty good results for that kind of setup. With what you have, you might try jury-rigging an equatorial tracker from some wood and cheap motors (most people call this a "barn door tracker"), and use one of your film cameras (or a good DSLR, if you have one) with a telephoto lens, and experiment. Given the limited exposure time, you shouldn't need to carefully polar align the mount.

The idea with the webcam is to get one that'll shoot video (IIRC, these run as cheap as $20 these days), then have it shoot through the telescope, either afocally or without the eyepiece. Have it shoot a bunch of video frames (for the Moon, you shouldn't need good tracking, if any), and then use a program like Registax to select the sharpest frames and stack those, creating a much sharper image than a single long exposure. This also works for the planets.

The picture could have been clearer but there was some haze/pollution in the atmosphere and I was on a small plastic tripod....

Something I missed in my first reply; the haze actually made the picture clearer, because it stabilized the air you were looking through. The Moon and planets are bright enough that a little haze does nothing to detract from the view (and watching as clouds drift across the Solar disk is pretty cool, too through a telescope).

I was on night mode, 80X digital zoom, f/8, the exposure time I didn't notice. I just set the timer to countdown 5 secs after I pressed the shutter button. Also the Canon SX10 IS is a P&S camera not a DSLR.

For the Moon, you should not need night mode. Other than that, I would encourage you to experiment for best results.

[Bounty]

Rock Werchter. I smuggled in the Olympus - security didn't mind (in fact, one guard took it out when he searched my backpack, turned it over a few times, and said "nice"), but the company I was in did, so I only got to take a few shots.

M. Ward

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Mine were 1/32 @ f/2.8 for the first and 1/64 @ f/4 for the second, ISO unknown. I am certainly well acquainted with shake, but my setup was very DIY: mount a small telescope on a very lightweight camera tripod; hold a cheap Kodak compact digicam up to the eyepiece, and try to hold the whole mess steady over the exposure time while also trying to swat mosquitoes.

I did come across the webcam book from Patrick Moore's Practical Astronomy series once, and it seemed like it would be an interesting read.

Those are pretty good results for that kind of setup. With what you have, you might try jury-rigging an equatorial tracker from some wood and cheap motors (most people call this a "barn door tracker"), and use one of your film cameras (or a good DSLR, if you have one) with a telephoto lens, and experiment. Given the limited exposure time, you shouldn't need to carefully polar align the mount.

Barn-door trackers are at their best for shooting the sky over several minutes. It's a good way to get good starfield images on low-speed film. You also don't necessarily need the motor. Just an appropriately pitched screw turned periodically. For shooting the Moon or planets, you don't need long enough exposure times to warrant the tracker, unless you're trying to shoot a lot of video of a planet for image stacking.

I was on night mode, 80X digital zoom, f/8, the exposure time I didn't notice. I just set the timer to countdown 5 secs after I pressed the shutter button. Also the Canon SX10 IS is a P&S camera not a DSLR.

For the Moon, you should not need night mode. Other than that, I would encourage you to experiment for best results.

Indeed. The Moon is bright enough that night mode is wasted on it. Try spot metering, so the camera sets its exposure time based on the brightness of the Moon, instead of the brightness of the scene, which will usually result in the Moon being overexposed.

[Simplicius]

@ Bounty: I think the last one is the best of the three. It's unbalanced, but the light gives it a certain mood and the line of the tree repeated in the standing couple is a good compositional element. The flare or really out-of-focus stalk of grass or whatever that is on the left also isn't so bad, because it fits in with the warm color of the rest of the picture. An okay photo, all told.

[Simplicius]

First three photos and the first part of the review of the Olympus XA2. It turned out to be a pretty good compact P&S, and worth well more than the dollar I paid for it.



Overview:

Construction is mixed aluminum and plastic; major plastic parts include the sliding lens cover, film rewind crank, and the buttons and switches. The body shell is metal. I have no complaints about the tactile durability of the camera, except for the the film rewind crank. It isn't as firmly seated as I would like, and the actual handle only folds out to 130° or so. This complicated film rewinding, as the crank wobbles a little and the handle constantly wants to fold itself back up. This was my only significant complaint. Sure, a ratchet wheel film advance isn't as fast as a lever, but it is there for a reason.



This camera is designed with pocketability as a priority. Besides being small and light, there are no snag-able protrusions - the film advance is a wheel, as mentioned; the shutter button (which trips an electromagnetic shutter) has very little throw, if any at all, and is flush with the top of the camera; the lens cover is designed to form a smooth surface when closed. The film rewind crank also has a minimal profile when closed; this is largely so that the lens cover can clear it when it slides open.

The XA series is also good for quick starts. The lens cover switches the camera on by sliding open, and since there is a fixed lens there is no delay for lens extension. As soon as the cover is open the camera is on and metering, and if the film is advanced the shutter can be tripped right away.



Features: 3-zone focus (1.2m-1.8m, 1.2m-onward, and 6.3m-infinity) controlled by a switch on the camera body. Aperture-priority autoexposure, 2 s-1/750 s), settings for ISO 25-ISO 800. Unlike its sibling the XA, exposure settings are not revealed, but there is a green low-light warning in the viewfinder window. Flash is a separate unit. Takes 2 SR-44 or S-76 silver oxide batts (it's a modern camera, so no need to dick around with replacing a mercury battery.) Lens is a 35mm f/3.5 Zuiko.

[The Grim Squeaker]

First shot has good colour accuracy, and a good primeval look.
Second shot is a lot more interesting and id rate it as good to very good.
Third shot - thats some insane vignetting for a fabled Zuiko lens. Nice colours but unexceptional.

[Bounty]

@ Bounty: I think the last one is the best of the three. It's unbalanced, but the light gives it a certain mood and the line of the tree repeated in the standing couple is a good compositional element. The flare or really out-of-focus stalk of grass or whatever that is on the left also isn't so bad, because it fits in with the warm color of the rest of the picture. An okay photo, all told.

Yeah, mood is pretty much all you can achieve when you don't have time and people bump into you. I envied the people who got in to do the official photoshoots; then again, they likely didn't have half as much fun

[Bounty]

Oh, and Simplicius: you lucky dog. I've seen XA's go for massive amounts of money, certainly more than you'd pay for one on sight, so a $1 is an excellent find. Nice review, too; I'd been wondering about how it was to use and especially how well the construction holds up.

Did you deliberately cut off the top of the boat in the last pic or was there no room to manoeuvre?

[Simplicius]

Oh, and Simplicius: you lucky dog. I've seen XA's go for massive amounts of money, certainly more than you'd pay for one on sight, so a $1 is an excellent find. Nice review, too; I'd been wondering about how it was to use and especially how well the construction holds up.

Did you deliberately cut off the top of the boat in the last pic or was there no room to manoeuvre?

The framing in the last photo there was a choice, but not a particularly happy one. I had to choose between the top of the mast and getting some of the reflection in-frame, and I couldn't back up without taking a dive into the harbor. And as the man said, "...but wait - there's more!"



Review part 2: How it all works, generally.

Exposure: With an auto-exposure camera, this is a critical feature. Fortunately, the XA2 exposes quite well, even in low-light or uneven lighting conditions. I believe the meter is center-weighted, which is probably why the setting sun in the above photo didn't interfere too much. I don't have any bright-sunlight test shots to see if placing the sun closer to the center of the frame would have a stronger influence on the metering, and by how much.

I think the autoexposure (program, not aperture-priority - that's the XA) is accurate, though sometimes it feels as though it underexposes by a fraction of a stop. I would need to shoot a few more rolls to really get a feel for it. Any underexposure is small enough that there is plenty of recoverable detail with negative film, but I would not feel comfortable shooting slide film in my XA2 until I had a better handle on its exposure.

A note: the original XA had a 1.5 EV backlighting compensation on the self-timer/battery check switch. The XA2 does not, but the ISO-select switch can be used to alter the exposure instead. I didn't bother with that, though.



Focus and Viewfinding: While the original XA was a proper rangefinder, the cheaper and simpler XA2 dispensed with this in favor of a 3-zone focus, controlled by a switch on the front. The focus zones work as advertised, and should be used. The exposure program probably prefers a medium aperture, which means that you will lose focus if the wrong zone is selected. A downside of this system is that, since there are no visual cues for focus, one might forget to set the proper zone in one's enthusiasm to make a photograph. Another downside is that depth-of-field control becomes irrelevant as a compositional tool.

Since the XA2 has zone focusing, the viewfinding window is clear and unobstructed by what I hear is a rather dim focusing spot for the XA's tiny rangefinder. It is a small window, but not too small or too dim to use effectively. Like most modern viewfinding P&S cameras, the window has a set of framelines. Like other viewfinders and rangefinders, the window is slightly larger than the space indicated by the framelines, which is handy for shooting moving scenes as you can see things before they move into the frame proper, unlike with a reflex camera. The traditional problem for viewfinders, though, is parallax, and unless you are using a parallax-corrected rangefinder, what you see in your framelines might not be what you get.

I am pleased to report that the XA2 has accurate framelines. The photo below is exactly as framed even though the near end of the mooring line extends into the close focus zone (1.2-1.8 meters). This is an immense relief to me, not least because my previous experience with P&S viewfinders demanded wild-ass-guess parallax correction on my part once I was getting down to the minimum focusing distance.



Lens: Squinting at the full-res scans, it turns out that the little Zuiko is evenly sharp across the whole frame. Exactly how sharp is a matter for test-pattern whores, but it outresolves Fujifilm 200 - in other words, it's sharp enough. Being a small lens, it does introduce some barrel distortion, though in most instances it isn't really noticeable. There is curious light fall-off toward the sides of the frame; apparently this is common to all of the XAs, and it is not too severe and probably corrected simply enough in Photoshop. A little reading suggests that it becomes more pronounced at wider apertures, in which case it is a problem more for the aperture-priority XA than for the full-auto XA2.

Being a slightly wide lens, it has a deep depth of field which works in concert with the exposure program to produce useful images at all three zones, but to marginalize DoF for compositional purposes.

Shutter: The shutter is electromagnetic and fired by a hair-trigger button on top of the camera (compared to a more traditional shutter button, it has no discernable play.) Since the shutter is electrically operated, there is zero chance of accidentally firing with the lens cover closed, even with the film advance. A disadvantage of the low-profile button is that it can be a little hard to find by feel alone.

The shutter is very quiet, which is good for stealth, but whoever is using the camera needs to listen for it carefully. The shutter gives two clicks when it fires; one when it opens and one when it closes. The camera selects the shutter speed without notifying the photographer, and that speed could be as slow as 2 seconds. Thus, the first click is a signal to the user not to move until he hears the second one. Fortunately, the electromagnetic shutter makes handholding at very slow shutter speeds feasible. Unless one is spastic, I would rate camera shake below incorrect focusing as the most likely leading cause of image unsharpness.

[Simplicius]

Last part of the review: What the hell is it good for?

Having established that the XA2 has a sharp lens, competent autoexposure, and accurate framelines, and all this in a very compact and stealthy package, one must ask what one might use it for. Is it a pro camera? A quality product for the weekend and holiday snapshooter? Or something else?



If this camera is well-suited to a particular role, that role would have to be street or candid shooting. The shutter is quiet and the camera is small and looks like any old consumer camera, so it is unlikely to draw undue attention from passers-by. It does not scream "PHOTOGRAPHER!" Furthermore, its wide lens, presettable zone focusing, and wide depth of field make snap shooting or shooting from the hip feasible. It's less feasible when the camera picks a slow shutter speed, of course, but even then the ability to handhold well at low speeds means that successful photos might still be made.

While the XA2 can certainly be used for other facets of photography, the single fixed lens and lack of manual input are not as useful when speed is not an issue and more creative control is desirable. It simply isn't versatile enough to be really useful outside of the medium-range 'street' genre. That said, as a back-up camera for the serious photographer on the road, or a personal-use camera for someone who is handy with a camera and wants dependable image quality to suit his skill, the XA2 is a good choice. Not the only good choice, but worthwhile just the same.



I've seen the XA series being mentioned by Matt Denton and others in the same sentence as Lomography and the LC-A, so I suppose I ought to address this. Superficially, the appeal is not too hard to see: it is sleek and chic, it is '1980s retro,' and vignetting is popular, even though the XA2 does not vignette severely.

On a deeper level, the XA2 is a far better camera to suit the Lomo philosophy (ignoring for the moment the cynical marketing behind it) than the LC-As or Holgas - which are more limiting than liberating because of their quality. It is easy to use, which makes perfect sense with "Don't think; just shoot." This is actually a suitable philosophy for a neophyte who has yet to generate an actual interest in photography.

The real bonus is that the XA2 is capable enough to give an interested novice real room to grow. Unlike the low-quality cameras marketed by The Lomographic Society, which seem only to be good for mindless wankery on one side, or use by seasoned professionals (see David Burnett and his Holga) on the other, the XA2 is suitable in one way another for people along the whole length of the photographic spectrum, which ought to make it a successful camera by any measure.

[Bounty]

[The Grim Squeaker]

"Grumble Grumble".
Simplicus, the second set of XA shots are Very nice, (the bridge shot after that is meh. Maybe a closer shot with the sign would have made it more interesting), and you're making me very grouchy that my camera is still in Japan with my family .

[Bounty]

The real bonus is that the XA2 is capable enough to give an interested novice real room to grow. Unlike the low-quality cameras marketed by The Lomographic Society, which seem only to be good for mindless wankery on one side, or use by seasoned professionals (see David Burnett and his Holga) on the other, the XA2 is suitable in one way another for people along the whole length of the photographic spectrum, which ought to make it a successful camera by any measure.

Between the two, would you recommend the XA or XA2? Did you miss the rangefinder? Not in the sense that it's needed - your pictures prove otherwise - but in the sense that you feel it would add to the camera?

[Simplicius]

"Grumble Grumble".
Simplicus, the second set of XA shots are Very nice, (the bridge shot after that is meh. Maybe a closer shot with the sign would have made it more interesting), and you're making me very grouchy that my camera is still in Japan with my family .

Still waiting on your luggage, or are they borrowing it for the remainder of their trip? Might be a good reason to have a quality, pocketable backup like a Canon A-series or something else that doesn't cost an arm and a leg, just so you can always keep a camera handy.

Between the two, would you recommend the XA or XA2? Did you miss the rangefinder? Not in the sense that it's needed - your pictures prove otherwise - but in the sense that you feel it would add to the camera?

It would certainly add to the camera by making impossible to forget to focus correctly (which I did for a few frames), though it might take away a little as well - I don't know whether its smallness would make it awkward to use. I've heard that the focusing spot is dim and that the lever has a very short throw, but that doesn't automatically make it a pain in the ass.

Personally - from my heavy experience with manual cameras - I'd take the XA. It offers more direct input in focusing and in exposure (aperture-priority), and it offers more output in the form of an exposure indicator in the viewfinder. Thus, I have some knowledge of what went into the picture and have an idea of what to expect coming out of it. The XA2 works, if this one roll is any indication, but it doesn't tell you what it's doing while it's working. Having to blindly trust the machine makes me uncomfortable - not because I think it will fail, but simply because it's my photograph and therefore I want to be kept in the know.

[Simplicius]

My prints, negs, and scans are in an abysmal organizational state and it will take me a long time to get them sorted out to my satisfaction. This is too bad, because the quicker that's done, the quicker I can exhibit photos properly. I've got a lot of photos I can show here, but they're in no particular order and with no particular standard of post-processing.



Oregon Northwestern



Columbian



Extinguisher, Searsport Station

Incidentally, what I'll be putting up for the next several days was all taken with Kodak's new Ektar. I'm pretty happy with it. It handles, reds, then blues, then greens best, in that order, but overall saturation is satisfactory. It is fine-grained - I had an 8x12 commercial (i.e. not professional) print made from a scan on my modest scanner, which looks good at normal viewing distances; it also takes sharpening well. It has a narrower dynamic range than print film, though not as narrow as slide and some shadow detail is recoverable, and it is somewhat slower than its rated speed of 100 suggests. The Kodak data sheet recommends "sunny 11" instead of f/16, which I think is reasonable but not strictly necessary, depending on the light. (These three photos were all 1/125 @ f/16 in bright sunlight.) Shooting with large shadow areas in-frame warrants the extra stop of exposure.

I think it will be a real ass-kicker in 120, though. Can't wait to try it.

[phongn]

E100 is quite nice in 120. I also agree with your view on how it handles colors - as (seemingly) usual, Kodak does better on reds and yellows. I still prefer Reala for greens and blues. On the 'net people seem to be shooting it at EI 80.

[Simplicius]

E100 is quite nice in 120. I also agree with your view on how it handles colors - as (seemingly) usual, Kodak does better on reds and yellows. I still prefer Reala for greens and blues. On the 'net people seem to be shooting it at EI 80.

I think sometimes Kodak manages. I've made a couple of frames of Portra VC that have gorgeous blues in them, though greens are not as good.

[Simplicius]

Still rocking the month-old stuff.

[The Grim Squeaker]

That is some fine sunshine.
(looks mournfully at hordes of burnt out photos from Japan).