I've had a love/hate relationship with these two cameras for years and recently, after a fairly extensive side by side test, decided to add an Olympus XA to my stable (truth be told I was hoping for the Rollei as it most fits in with my Leica gear - philosophywise). The combatants: a mint Rollei 35 SE v.s. a mint XA. (both checked by our service dept). One roll TriX 36 exp through each - same subjects, cameras side by side. The results. All of the images from the XA were sharp up to an 8X10" plus print size. Three of the Rollei shots were visibly unsharp on the contact sheet, another 5 were unusable at 8X10" (IMO - Bresson would probably have liked them). These were mostly photos taken under 5 feet, wide open, where 'guesstimation focus is severely handicapped. Of the 36 images metered on the XA, 4 would have required some contrast adjustment to fix over/under exposure. There were 7 such shots from the Rollei. Especially in low light the XA had a more accurate meter. Yes - bokeh was a bit more pleasing from the Rollei, but not enough so to make up for the 25 percent of unuseable images from the Rollei.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), November 04, 2001

Answers

Bob,

It is not without regret that we accept progress, when it obsoletes our favorite cameras. Fortunately, your Rollei will still have its uses, under less demanding conditions. And our pre-M6 Leicas will have their uses for a long time to come; as long as there's film, really.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), November 04, 2001.

I got a lot of corner light fall off from the XA (especially at wider apertures with slide film)when I compared to it a Minox 35 a LONG time ago when both were new cameras. On color slides, the XA also had a less pleasing colder tint as well. Of course, with B&W film, neither of these things would be important. I'm afraid I'm too spoiled by the better AF P&S cameras to go back to the "guess the distance" types of small cameras I used years ago. I also had more than a few Minox 35 shots where I blew the focus estimate over the years.

-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), November 04, 2001.

Ciao, Bob--

Buy a Contax T3 and forget fretting between the SE and XA.

-- Cosmo Genovese (cosmo@rome.com), November 04, 2001.

Alternatively, get a Konica Hexar Silver, have it azn@nemeng.com), November 04, 2001.

Er, let's try again...

Alternatively, get a Konica Hexar Silver, have it silence-modified, and you'll end up with a super-silent AF P&S with full manual overrides. ;?)

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), November 04, 2001.

I don't think the 35mm/f2.8 Zuiko lens of XA is a match for Carl Zeiss Sonnar of Rollei 35S.

The peak resolution of Zuiko is below 70 lpmm, while the Sonnar lens is more than 80 lpmm.

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), November 04, 2001.

Hi Bob,

I have some problems with your comparison:

-> These were mostly photos taken under 5 feet, wide open, where 'guesstimation focus is severely handicapped. <-

Of course this is where the XA shines vs. the Rollei - having a rangefinder helps a lot. I have no XA, but a 35s and shoot a lot at about 5 feet - no problem with stopped down to f8, but of course unusable at 2.8. In my eyes this is no real shootout, sorry to say that, because you compare the XA's rangefinder to estimate guessing: This is why pictures are unsharp. A shootout would require comparable configuration which wasn't the case here.

You're right with the metering, which is not easy to use in low light, and because you're shooting wide open also under these circumstances, the rangefinder is an additional help here: so the XA is the camera of choice for this. Otherwise the Rollei might be an option (which still has to be found out).

Kai

PS: I'm a happy owner / user of Rollei 35's in bright light, but preferring an Olympus 35 RD for low light (besides the Leica, of course)

-- Kai Blanke (kai.blanke@iname.com), November 05, 2001.

Bob was not comparing the Zuiko vs Zeiss Sonnar lens

He was comparing the XA rangefinder with his own personal distance estimation technique

-- martin tai (martin.tai@capcanada.com), November 05, 2001.

Bang on Martin. I've read all the great specs of the Sonnar and really hoped it would win. But most of my shooting is low light, low shutter speed, close work and I don't always have my Leica with me (shame on me). I only meant this to be a real world test that gives people an idea of how these cameras performed under these circumstances. I have decided however to purchase both of the cameras (they are very reasonably priced), and try and better my 'guesstimation' technique. Looking back on a previous post I looked closely at the bokeh in the 8X10's I made and the Rollei is definitely superior in this respect. I'll let you know if I can make the Rollei work for me.

-- Bob Todrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), November 05, 2001.

Hi Bob,

some people love the Rolleis, some don't. It really has it's odds and quirks. But on the other hand it is fully manual which allows eveything a Leica does besides the rangefinder. But the rangefinder is sometimes necessary (wide open & close) and sometimes not (high- speed film, 'normal' distances, f8 and higher). If you never worked with 'guesstimation' before this may be quite a problem (as in your case), but you can get used to it ... it depends a lot of training (and missed shots) to learn though.

So the Rollei is certainly different from what we are used to, but may be a great tool if you get used to it (if you can. Some people just cannot - see also the Rollei cameraquest page).

Kai

-- Kai Blanke (Kai.Blanke@iname.com), November 05, 2001.

Support Leica--- procure the fabulous Minilux instead! :)

Alfie

-- Alfie Wang (albert.wang@ibx.com), November 05, 2001.

I shot with Olympus XAs until the third one died with film transport problems. Nice camera, nice lens, if a little prone to flare. The RF is nice when you're working very close and wide open, but otherwise mostly useless.

I switched first to a Minox 35EL and saw a remarkable improvement in contrast and sharpness; evidently, my distance guesses even close in are pretty good because I didn't see any difference in how frequently I got the focus right.

Later I got my first Rolleli 35 (Tessar lens) and was amazed to find here again an improvement in image quality. And it was all manual settings ... full freedom now!

I kinda gave up on the XAs. Nowadays, the Minox 35GT-E and Rollei 35S are my two favorite 35mm compacts, mostly because they give you so much control. I'd probably buy a Contax T3 if I didn't already have the Contax Tix, however, and enjoy the automation as well.

-- Godfrey (ramarren@bayarea.net), November 06, 2001.

A long time ago I chose between a Minox and the XA as a camera for my wife. I took the XA because of the rangefinder. I have yet to understand what people see in the XA. The lens produces very poor contrast and of course the rangefinder isn't going to be much good at that price.

I eventually replaced the XA with a Leica (Minolta) AF-C1 which (IMHO) outperforms the XA. My wife now has a Minilux despite my best efforts to get her to accept an M6:-)

BTW, I used to work in Germany back in the 70's and people in the Branch Office would have very sophisticated slide shows after work. One of them was by a young man who photographed a trip to Egypt with a Rollei 35. The results were outstanding.

-- Bud (budcook@attglobal.net), November 06, 2001.

BTW, don’t forget the XA-2. All my tests show that it’s lens D-Zuiko 3.5/35mm (Tessar-type, the letter “D” means four elements) is much better (no vignetting and significantly sharper) than XA’s E-Zuiko 2.8/35mm (five elements). The camera has three fixed position of a distance and it’s impossible to err. The lens is whole moving (as Rollei 35S/SE’ Sonnar), while the XA’ lens has the middle element moving when focussing, and this along the lens design affect a lens sharpness. The Rollei T/TE’ Tessar has the front element moving.

I shot once the whole exhibition of antic cars with the only XA-2, (lost the bag with the Hassy & Leica, then did find it) and nobody believes that the bale of a hundred photos is made with such an imperceptible and non-professional camera. Seems, namely the XA-2 is exhibited in the London’s Museum of Engineer Art.

-- Victor Randin (ved@enran.com.ua), November 07, 2001.

I had an XA2 for about a second. I found the whole thing to be a horrible experience. Plasticy and fiddly at the same time. I found the results most undistinguished. I may well have had a bad one. Some cameras can be too small and fiddly. In my opinion r/fs that small are of not much use either. I would rather have any modern reasonable plastic point and shoot.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), November 09, 2001.