The Future at Nikon

[Blumlein 88]

As long as the company (Nikon) is in business the warranty should be valid.

Well if I need a repair or part and they no longer produce or have the ability to produce riflescopes then how would they fix it? They might have a contract to farm it out to someone else, but would it be the same quality? I suppose if/when the time comes I need their warranty I will find out.

 

[balletboy]

Leica lenses... they have some rendering that is hard to explain in objective* terms. It is often called Leicaness. The Panasonic-Leica lenses ofr m43 bodies seem to have it too.

people have tried to explain it as microcontrast, color, etc.

here are some notes gathered from people trying to explain Leicaness:

micro-contrast - the ability to register numerous tonal variations between slightly darker and slightly brighter areas of similar colors

high micro-contrast gives rich colors and smooth tonal transitions that create the three-dimensional “feel” of a photo

Leica lenses have high micro-contrast and “glow”

Glow - a localized haze around highlights, caused by spherical aberrations when using a large aperture

Leica lenses have a smooth focus fall off from the focal plane

an illusion of depth in the photograph




* microscopic pun noted but not intended

Probably not far off. Don't know if this is a fair example, just happened to be one of the last pics I put on Flickr. Taken with my 1957 50/f2 Rigid on a modern M digital.

 

[JeffS7444]

Leica lenses... they have some rendering that is hard to explain in objective* terms.

It's also unlikely that it'd hold up to any sort of scrutiny, such as comparing photos without identifying the equipment used! Back in the days of film I borrowed a Canon AE1 with 50/1.8 lens and compared to my 50/2 Leica Summicron-M, and let's just say I wouldn't bet a kidney on my being able to distinguish photos taken with one versus the other with any degree of reliability, unless working under specific conditions, and even then ..?

people have tried to explain it as microcontrast, color, etc.

Which is right up there with audiophile terms like "front to back depth": It's meaningless. Even the optical qualities which determine a lens's "bokeh" are known and can be controlled, and the proof in the pudding are lenses like Nikon's 105/2 DC ("Defocus Control") and Sony's 100/2.8 STF ("Smooth Transfer Focus"). Reason why you're only seeing killer glass from some companies lately perhaps has more to do with the casual and entry-level markets dying, while the high-end market still allows relatively healthy margins.

Don't get me wrong: I was a huge Leica nerd in the past, and I still enjoy the things to some degree, but let's not get carried away. Ditto Apple products.

 

[tuga]

I have always been bemused by the 'pixel wars'. It seems to be an amateur preoccupation. Most amateurs are, generally, financially constrained to A4 sized prints with a few able to have the means to produce A3 size prints and fewer still going larger. The arguments over pixels tend to be moot.

Cropping?

 

[mansr]

Exactly. Yet any Nikon pro body will accept Nikkors back to the birth of the Nikon SLR system -- 1959 (just like Patti Smith said).

Well, I'm glad I don't have to worry about mechanical links between body and lens.

 

[GXAlan]

It's also unlikely that it'd hold up to any sort of scrutiny,

The data is captured in the MTF (Central and offset) as well as Field curvature as well as the polychroma c Strehl. Fewer elements combined with high end multicoating increases contrast.

The reason Leica can achieve superior optics is that they have built a market that supports $10,000 lenses. For some time, Leica continued to use arsenic and lead in their lenses when the Japanese had moved to eco glass, which only recently has gotten better. Quality control is generally superb for Leica and customer service is Swarovski Optik level. As the M and S are not designed for high speeds, the focus group doesn’t need to be lightweight.

Last, because the M requires photographers to have some fundamental skill, the average published Leica photo tends to be spectacular.

You can also assess lenses at their MTF50 in terms of lp/mm versus their MTF at defined lp/mm. You can assess the diffraction for front and rear focus. All of that taken together can accurately describe optics.

The best place to learn about the science of optics is any telescope/astronomy forum. In those areas, everything is tuned for infinity focus with no concept of size constraints and less worry about cost. Then you can study camera optics where weight (telephoto group), image stabilization and focus elements matters.

I have always been impressed with Leica optics, and I shot with the Leica S Typ006 for some time. The reality is that if I was shooting a Wedding in the US, I am going with my Canon and if I am shooting internationally, I am going with my FujiFilm APS-C. As good as the Kodak CCD/Leica S was in good light, the GFX is just a better MF system overall.

 

[Ron Texas]

I'm happy everyone is having fun, but this was not intended to be a general photography free for all. Cary on.

 

[GXAlan]

I'm happy everyone is having fun, but this was not intended to be a general photography free for all. Cary on.

Well I guess the question is the future of Nikon

- dead

- niche like Leica and no longer the professional’s choice

- thriving with the maturity of Z mount

- something else

 

[Ron Texas]

Well I guess the question is the future of Nikon

- dead

- niche like Leica and no longer the professional’s choice

- thriving with the maturity of Z mount

- something else

It is what it is.
Come to think of it, a ML camera could be packaged to be about the same size as a Leica.

 

[JeffS7444]

The data is captured in the MTF (Central and offset) as well as Field curvature as well as the polychroma c Strehl. Fewer elements combined with high end multicoating increases contrast.

So do you agree with Wes's statement that

"Leica lenses... they have some rendering that is hard to explain in objective* terms. It is often called Leicaness. The Panasonic-Leica lenses ofr m43 bodies seem to have it too. "?

Because I have no idea what this "Leicaness" is, unless it's one of those terms which be freely redefined as needed. Feel free to quantify this effect for me so that I may better understand.

Quality control is generally superb for Leica

IME, not on the same level as Canon, Sony or Olympus:
Leica M6 factory refurbished: Slight vertical misalignment of rangefinder. (minor)
Leica Trinovid 8x32BA binoculars factory refurbished: Decorative cap fell off.(minor)
Leica M8 brand new: Dust on sensor, infrared contamination, iffy white balance, lines on sensor, poor finder framing accuracy (was annoyed about framing accuracy, eventually addressed in M8.2 and available as non-free "upgrade")
Leica 50/1 Noctilux, brand new: Significant backfocus (major, repaired under warranty)
Leica M9 factory refurbished: Soft/quiet release feature never really did work without firing off multiple shots even in single-shot mode. (minor, factory did not / could not fix)

Oh and speaking of optical performance, when actually used on digital M body, I found that:
50/1 Noctilux had heavy chromatic aberration manifesting itself as blue halos around bright objects. Nothing to be done about it as it was an old design and there was a reason it was discontinued soon thereafter.
28/2.8 Elmarit-M Asph, 35/2 Summicron: exhibited considerable color shift light falloff and softness in corners. Not a defect so much as a tradeoff for optics not optimized for Bayer-type sensor.

I'm not bitter about this because I never expected perfection, particularly not from a small company milling components from blocks of metal and hand-assembling, but at least up until 2012, my experience was that odds of a new Leica product needing at least minor service are much greater than their bigger competitors and that digital M cameras were somewhat beta-quality. Leica USA service was sometimes prompt, sometimes not so much. Love the small size of many lenses but it comes at the expense of so-so corner performance when used with Bayer-type sensor.

 

[LTig]

Well if I need a repair or part and they no longer produce or have the ability to produce riflescopes then how would they fix it? They might have a contract to farm it out to someone else, but would it be the same quality? I suppose if/when the time comes I need their warranty I will find out.

Well, if they give a life time warranty they have to stock a certain number of spare parts. Whether there are any workers left who know how to repair this is another story. Anyway, if they give this warranty they have to adhere to it,and if they can't you should expect cash back.

I know, I'm dreaming ....

 

[Wes]

I would not call any of the effects people have attributed to Leicaness as "meaningless" unless I were able to devise a test.

Science cuts both ways folks.

I do know that the same scene photographed within a second or two with a regular Lumix lens and a P-L lens can look different (esp. landscapes with clouds). Same FL, aperture yada yada.

 

[JeffS7444]

I would not call any of the effects people have attributed to Leicaness as "meaningless" unless I were able to devise a test.

Science cuts both ways folks.

Um, isn't it your job to prove that the claimed effect exists? But let's let it slide already. Man, if this were Hydrogen Audio, you'd have gotten ripped to shreds but fortunately I'm a pretty lazy easygoing guy.

 

[Wes]

Please go back and read my original post on this. Less laziness will reveal that it is not my job to prove any effects claimed.

Moreover, "meaningless" is an inappropriate characterization in any event. "unsupported" or "not proven" would be appropriate.

 

[Asylum Seeker]

You can mix most lenses and cameras these days, it's just whatever works for you. I like small, as can be seen from the Leica Summaron 28/f5.6 compared to the Nikon FTZ mount converter.
View attachment 67637View attachment 67638

I can stick this lens on a Nikon Z6 and use it perfectly well with focus peaking. It doesn't rally need focusing as much of the time you can just leave it on f/8 and infinity.

Unfortunately it is about as pretty as a pair of Genelec speakers.
View attachment 67639

Yes... The fact that Nikon people are still talking about the 1950s, in the age of the rise of Mirror less, in the face of the gauntlet thrown by Canon's RF mountvleses is symptomatic of Nikon's decline.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Well, if they give a life time warranty they have to stock a certain number of spare parts. Whether there are any workers left who know how to repair this is another story. Anyway, if they give this warranty they have to adhere to it,and if they can't you should expect cash back.

I know, I'm dreaming ....

Well looking at some forums regarding Nikon riflescopes, for the past year or so, if you had scope a few years old or older, they no longer had spare parts of any kind. So they were replacing such scopes with the closest comparable current scope. Which is okay, their warranty is to repair or replace. Couldn't find anyone who had tried to get warranty since the 1st of the year. One fellow had called and said no CS reps had info on how to handle that. It wasn't a no, but an "I don't know how we can do that". Not encouraging, but not the worst thing that every happened.

 

[Wes]

The fact that Nikon people can still talk about the 1950s, in the age of the rise of Mirror less, in the face of the gauntlet thrown by Canon's RF mountvleses is symptomatic of Nikon's staying power.

 

[mansr]

I doubt either Canon or Nikon are going anywhere.

 

[balletboy]

I doubt either Canon or Nikon are going anywhere.

I always thought of Nikon as a great optics company that made some decent cameras, some very good. Their medium and large format optics were top of the tree. I thought of Canon as making very good cameras and very average optics. Olympus were in the middle. Sony would sweep the market with great cameras and Zeiss optics if their software was any good, which it isn't. Leica just live in a world apart and not much has changed since 1954. Many Leica users, me included, think the ergonomics were perfected with the M3 65 years ago and want everything to have the same feel, so when the Leica Q was a few mm thicker lots of people complained and they made the Q2 thinner in line with the M.

 

[maxxevv]

Canon's strength have been its super telephotos since the EOS line started. Its wide angle lenses were nothing to shout about though.