Obviously, ostensibly at least, it seems the OP has erred with the twenty centimeters, but has he really?
He just might be talking about the actual item photographed being off of by such amount (almost eight inches, avoirdupois-wise). In other words, if he is taking a picture of a person's head, that head's image in the negative will be 'off' by an amount equivalent to 20 cm from the actual head's center. In other words, when he thought that the top of the head was flush with the top of the viewfinder, the head was actually an equivalent of eight inches LOWER in the negative. Of course, it is NOT eight inches lower in the actual negative, but only with regard to the original scene.
Poisson, we might disagree to some extent, but, at least to me, the XA does not represent a very high standard of expertise. Many out there have found the circuitry to be flawed and prone to malfunctioning when just tiny bit of dirt gets involved in the circuitry. Of course, the basic stamping of the body's alignment is precise...that is not hard to do. But, compared with the Canon 17 or other Canon RF's or, notably, the Olympus RC or RD, or the great Minolta Hi-matics, the XA does not really pass muster. That said, great photographs can be made with the XA. But, given the option, one would be more prudent to acquire the others mentioned. The XA is a good camera and not wildly inaccurate at all, but not as well made. - David Lyga
Last edited by David Lyga; 02-15-2013 at 08:31 AM. Click to view previous post history.