Fuji X-Pro1 is ok, but $2300 for it and a lens seems like a lot

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Apr 8, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I handled it a bit today. It's light, feels like it's made of
    plastic, but it could be a lightweight metal body. The 35mm f2.0
    is...distressing. It makes a noticeable noise when focusing, like an
    old Nikon D lens, and it jumps back and forth to find focus. So, when
    I compare it (figuratively) with my old D300/16-85mm which was built
    like a tank and silent in focusing operation (and fast) I just can't
    figure why it should cost $2300 for the pair. It's not that I don't
    think it should, I just have trouble reconciling how it can cost
    anywhere near as much to build as the traditional semi-pro Nikon.
    Good thing the sensor seems to kick a--, according to the reviews so
    far. When I first picked up the camera, the old Panasonic L1
    immediately came to mind. I saw an L1 with that fantastic fast Leica
    zoom it came with for $700 used the other day, I was temped..
    RichA, Apr 8, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >I handled it a bit today. It's light, feels like it's made of
    >plastic, but it could be a lightweight metal body. The 35mm f2.0
    >is...distressing.



    Yes, it is *so* distressing, mainly because there isn't a 35mm f/2 in
    the range. Neither is one planned.

    So it is not a surprise that you are distressed. Handling
    non-existent lenses is not something that people of a delicate
    disposition should attempt to do.
    Bruce, Apr 9, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >Bruce <> wrote in
    >news::
    >
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >>>I handled it a bit today. It's light, feels like it's made of
    >>>plastic, but it could be a lightweight metal body. The 35mm f2.0
    >>>is...distressing.

    >>
    >> Yes, it is *so* distressing, mainly because there isn't a 35mm f/2 in
    >> the range. Neither is one planned.
    >>
    >> So it is not a surprise that you are distressed. Handling
    >> non-existent lenses is not something that people of a delicate
    >> disposition should attempt to do.
    >>

    >
    >Odd. I glanced briefly at the lens and was sure it said 35mm f2.0. Might
    >have been another number I saw on it. The front element was small too.
    >If it's still there when I go back for the Olympus I'll look at it again.



    The launch lenses are 18mm f/2.0, 35mm f/1.4, 60mm f/2.4.
    Bruce, Apr 10, 2012
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Routers fail to connect - Dell 2300

    , Oct 31, 2005, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    797
  2. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    457
    Whiskers
    Feb 19, 2007
  3. Rob J
    Replies:
    30
    Views:
    897
    Shane (aka froggy)
    Mar 28, 2005
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    733
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    285
    RichA
    Jul 25, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page