Some folks refer to the "big three"- SWARO, ZEISS and Leica. But what about Nikon? Shouldn't we say the big four?
The big 3, or euro alphas, have a status based on the quality of their optics, the quality of their construction/design, and from some mix of simply being part of the reality/marketing phenomenon referred to as "German engineering" (or at least germanic engineering
. Zeiss and Leica have earned brand status from long histories making industrial, lab, military, and high-end consumer optics. Swarovski is much newer to the scene and hasn't done as much with optics generally, but no consumer can doubt its status as a european maker of luxury consumer goods, what with all the crystal and such. It is true that not all Zeiss, Leica, and Swarovski models are at the pinnacle of optical performance, but all are still unmistakably luxury goods. Those bins are only bought deliberately, because even the least expensive models are way out of the price range that most consumers imagine a bin should cost if it's only meant to be a bin. The euro alphas are great tools, but prestige is also always part of the equation. That's why Leica can charge so much more than Panasonic for what is exactly the same compact digital camera.
No one questions Nikon's ability to make top-end bins. But Nikon is a Japanese company, so it can't partake of the Euro mystique, and it doesn't market itself so as to cultivate a comparable set of associations. Since the 1960s, it has built a reputation as a maker of superb consumer and industrial optics. The high-end Nikon consumer optics have a reputation for being well engineered, solid, usually conservatively styled _tools_. Nikon is famous among (at least older) photographers for engineering some extreme optics (some crazy-amazing limited-production SLR lenses), but even there, the emphasis has been on showcasing its ability to solve design issues in the service of making tools to achieve particular technical needs, such as for commercial photography, industry, or NASA. Nikon pricing (with the exception of some of those limited production lenses) is generally kept low enough to make its products worth considering as tools for ones' trade or avocation, and performance is designed around versatility. In comparison, Leica makes cameras and lenses that are priced much much higher, and which are often less versatile as tools, even while being beautiful works of metal and glass and unmatched in some particular performance categories. They are marketed as luxury goods, without apology, and it is the rare consumer who can justify purchasing them based on practical considerations. Zeiss doesn't make cameras, but it does market luxury manual-focus lenses for current Nikon and other cameras (the lenses are expensive, especially considering their "feature set", though the pricing is controlled compared to Leica by being manufactured in Japan by Cosina). Meanwhile, Nikon puts the same brand name on both its best bins, and the ones that are only a small step up from the bins in the bubble packs. Some small Nikon cameras are marketed as fashion accessories, but all Nikon bins are first and foremost tools, even the expensive ones.
--AP
