I'd consider Nikon to be one of the very top brands optically (if they want). Here in Germany it's hard to get to ever see their binoculars in stores, especially above the monarchs, and Nikon seems to be almost "shy" while their cameras are everywhere. I hope they don't retreat. I certainly watch their offers all the time.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Nikon to Exit the H**Ting caper ..... ? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Chosun Juan
- Start date
- Status
Pinewood
New York correspondent
Hello all,
I think that the principal optical firms, Leica, Zeiss, Meopta and Nikon, have applied their innovations and experience in optics to sports optics. For a company like Zeiss, a sports optics division is important but it is far from their biggest generator of revenue. In a thread by Troubadour, Zeiss UK, mentioned that it biggest business was cinema, and I suppose that included professional video. There are important optics firms which seem to have no sports optics divisions at all, like Schneider. Of course, one never knows who is subcontracting to whom for components.
I find it hard to believe that H__T__G has generated enough bad press to force anyone out of a profitable business. Apparently, that Austrian firm does well in rifle 'scopes, while Zeiss, Leica and Meopta are still in the business with 'scopes and rangefinders.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
I think that the principal optical firms, Leica, Zeiss, Meopta and Nikon, have applied their innovations and experience in optics to sports optics. For a company like Zeiss, a sports optics division is important but it is far from their biggest generator of revenue. In a thread by Troubadour, Zeiss UK, mentioned that it biggest business was cinema, and I suppose that included professional video. There are important optics firms which seem to have no sports optics divisions at all, like Schneider. Of course, one never knows who is subcontracting to whom for components.
I find it hard to believe that H__T__G has generated enough bad press to force anyone out of a profitable business. Apparently, that Austrian firm does well in rifle 'scopes, while Zeiss, Leica and Meopta are still in the business with 'scopes and rangefinders.
Happy bird watching,
Arthur :hi:
Ian Byrnes
Well-known member
I'm a true animal lover and am saddened when I check out you tube videos on binoculars to find them spotting and lining up a beautiful elk, dear or wild boar to trophy!
I applaud Nikon !
I applaud Nikon !
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
I can't see Nikon exiting sport optics anytime soon - optics design is one of their core competencies.
They have in recent years come out with some crazy halo products such as the WX binocular series, and the new Z mount 58mm f0.95 Noct manual focus lens.
This seems like a company that's not going anywhere anytime soon - it's just a matter of them concentrating on the right profitable market segments ...... :cat:
Chosun :gh:
The 58mm f/0.95 Noct lens at £6,000 is in some ways silly, although probably extraordinarily good.
58mm lenses were produced to clear the mirror when changing from rangefinder full frame to SLRs, which used 50mm lenses. They were easier to design.
Then 57mm, 55mm and finally 50mm standard lenses, as glass types and computer design took hold.
The Nikon Noct lenses have been absolutely top lenses, some hand aspherised, although the Canon FD hand aspherised lenses are cheaper used. They are used in scientific research.
The Leica 50mm f/1.0 is also top notch.
Wray designed an f/0.57 lens in the 1950s? and Zeiss made the 50mm f/0.7 for the Apollo missions in the 1960s.
Stanley Kubrick famously used these in Barry Lyndon?
The Minolta Super A rangefinder camera from 1957 had a 50mm f/1.8 lens that is amazingly good even today.
Because of the challenge from camera phones all the lens makers are producing larger and crazier lenses at high prices, when an old small 50mm f/1.8 lens is good enough for 99% of photos.
Who makes A0 or A1 size prints, and who needs 60 megapixel cameras?
Yet the camera makers are trying to force the public into believing these are necessary.
A 100 year old box camera can probably produce beautiful photos still.
I have a photo of Amy Winehouse taken with a Canon A650 IS with a very small sensor.
The prints are A3 and A2. Everyone asks me for these photos but they are not getting them.
Standard f/0.95s are nothing new, although a professional may be able to use the Noct 58mm well.
It is also a bit silly as ISOs up to 102,000 produce good photos and ISO 12,800 very good photos.
f/0.95 lenses were probably made 70 years ago. With 100 ASA film they were indeed useful.
Regards,
B.
58mm lenses were produced to clear the mirror when changing from rangefinder full frame to SLRs, which used 50mm lenses. They were easier to design.
Then 57mm, 55mm and finally 50mm standard lenses, as glass types and computer design took hold.
The Nikon Noct lenses have been absolutely top lenses, some hand aspherised, although the Canon FD hand aspherised lenses are cheaper used. They are used in scientific research.
The Leica 50mm f/1.0 is also top notch.
Wray designed an f/0.57 lens in the 1950s? and Zeiss made the 50mm f/0.7 for the Apollo missions in the 1960s.
Stanley Kubrick famously used these in Barry Lyndon?
The Minolta Super A rangefinder camera from 1957 had a 50mm f/1.8 lens that is amazingly good even today.
Because of the challenge from camera phones all the lens makers are producing larger and crazier lenses at high prices, when an old small 50mm f/1.8 lens is good enough for 99% of photos.
Who makes A0 or A1 size prints, and who needs 60 megapixel cameras?
Yet the camera makers are trying to force the public into believing these are necessary.
A 100 year old box camera can probably produce beautiful photos still.
I have a photo of Amy Winehouse taken with a Canon A650 IS with a very small sensor.
The prints are A3 and A2. Everyone asks me for these photos but they are not getting them.
Standard f/0.95s are nothing new, although a professional may be able to use the Noct 58mm well.
It is also a bit silly as ISOs up to 102,000 produce good photos and ISO 12,800 very good photos.
f/0.95 lenses were probably made 70 years ago. With 100 ASA film they were indeed useful.
Regards,
B.
Last edited:
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
Bin - you are probably unique here on BF (or anywhere !
in that you are the only one who could include SLR's, f0.57 lenses, Apollo missions, Stanley Kubrick, 100 ASA film, 60 megapixel cameras, and Amy Winehouse all in the one post ! :eek!: :-O fantastic ! :t:Chosun :gh:
Hi Andy,
Amy Winehouse was a singer and songwriter, who like many young artists died young. She at 27 in 2011.
I also have an F3, but I used mainly Minolta, although I use the Nikon 500mm f/8 mirror lens on my Sony digital camera with a teleconverter.
The problem with old Nikon lenses, I have found, is that they are dust magnets. Very few old ones are really clean inside.
Nikon make some fine products, but the low priced digital compacts I don't much like and prefer Canon.
Regards,
B.
Amy Winehouse was a singer and songwriter, who like many young artists died young. She at 27 in 2011.
I also have an F3, but I used mainly Minolta, although I use the Nikon 500mm f/8 mirror lens on my Sony digital camera with a teleconverter.
The problem with old Nikon lenses, I have found, is that they are dust magnets. Very few old ones are really clean inside.
Nikon make some fine products, but the low priced digital compacts I don't much like and prefer Canon.
Regards,
B.
dries1
Member
Thanks B, and yes the older Nikon Lens are dust magnets. I have had my Nikon 28MM wide angle lens cleaned, and now just try to keep them out of dusty environments. For work I use a Fujinon handy pocket digital camera, and for other stuff I have a Canon T3 with some canon lens.
Andy W.
Andy W.
Alexis Powell
Natural history enthusiast
No one questions Nikon's design competency. It is their marketing and customer service/support ability that has long been in question, even on the camera side. Nikon is overall my favorite optical company, so I hope it is around forever, but I don't take it for granted. Look at what happened to Kodak.
--AP
tenex
reality-based
I've never had a Nikon bino, but we're into the new Z cameras in a big way now, so we have to hope Nikon is around a long time too. The Z system is very good, by the way, as it no doubt needs to be in today's market.
As to service/support, they're offering firmware upgrades at a pace not seen before (Fuji set the bar for that), and when one of our two Z6s was recalled for an image stabilization issue, it was returned quickly looking good as new.
As to service/support, they're offering firmware upgrades at a pace not seen before (Fuji set the bar for that), and when one of our two Z6s was recalled for an image stabilization issue, it was returned quickly looking good as new.
Kevin Conville
yardbirder
Is that meritorious?
Depending on what the updates are, that reads like they released it before it was fleshed out.
Nikon does have a bit of a checkered (recent) history with cameras. I've resisted jumping over to their (camera) camp for a lot of years now, though at times it was very tempting.
My days of wanting a better long lens and low noise/high ISO camera are over.
I just have no fire in my belly for it any more. Canon took the hope away from me.
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Amy Winehouse was a singer, who died young. She abused alcohol, cocaine and heroin. She died from those abuses.
This is just to educate, and it has nothing to do with Nikon.
Sorry.
dries1
Member
Thanks for the info Jerry, unfortunately all too common these days.
This quote from Alexis is quite telling and spot on. I own quite a few Nikon glass, some over 15 years old, and I still gaze through them with amazement of their optics.
Andy W.
Hello Andy,
I agree completely with your assessment of Nikon optical equipment.
I have an 8 x 40 Nikon Action EX porro which although not an expensive binocular at all , performs extremely well , a lot of my (the dreaded "H" word) buddies swear by Nikon binoculars.
Cheers.
In fairness, these are software updates that expand the cameras capabilities.
It would be unreasonable to expect all programming to be optimized before offering the product.
Instead, I would applaud Nikon for making the mental switch from all hardware to a more flexible and responsive hardware/software business strategy.
tenex
reality-based
Yes, it could seem that fixing or improving something implies that it was less than perfect to begin with... but cameras are so complex today that I'm glad manufacturers are admitting that and getting on with it. The updates tend to be a mixture of tiny bug fixes, recognizing newly introduced lenses, and -- yes -- new features that they didn't have working yet when the camera was released, or have only developed since. This can greatly extend the useful life of an otherwise obsolescent camera, so I welcome it wholeheartedly.
By the way, if you want long lenses, the 300 and 500 PF are amazing and easy to handle. But I could understand just being over that. Something similar happened to me years ago with the shift lens I never had.
Reading the official Nikon literature for the Noct 58mm f/0.95 is interesting.
It is indeed a magnificent lens.
But Nikon claim only Nikon could make a lens of this quality.
I think that Canon, Zeiss, Sony and probably Leica and Wild could make the same high quality lens.
Nikon says it uses an aspherical ground lens element.
Is this hand aspherised as with the f/1.2 Noct and similar Canon?
Sony are very proud of their machine aspherics, to maybe 1/40th wave accuracy.
Are Nikon using machine aspherics on the Noct 58mm f/0.95 lens?
Nikon mentions that molded glass could not be as accurate.
So how many molded glass elements are there in modern consumer lenses?
How many binocular elements use molded glass?
Is this the reason for the poor resolution of modern binoculars?
Nikon's profits are down maybe 80%.
The point I made previously about small sensors applies to smartphone cameras.
I don't have one, but it seems increasingly difficult to tell if a photo has been made using a smartphone camera or a traditional camera.
Also there are about 50 different f/0.95 lenses made over the last 70 years, but I think that this new Nikon may be the best one.
What would have impressed me more is a Nikon 50mm f/0.7 lens to compete with the 1960s Zeiss lens.
However, the Z6 camera may not be made to a high enough standard for an f/0.7 lens.
Regards,
B.
It is indeed a magnificent lens.
But Nikon claim only Nikon could make a lens of this quality.
I think that Canon, Zeiss, Sony and probably Leica and Wild could make the same high quality lens.
Nikon says it uses an aspherical ground lens element.
Is this hand aspherised as with the f/1.2 Noct and similar Canon?
Sony are very proud of their machine aspherics, to maybe 1/40th wave accuracy.
Are Nikon using machine aspherics on the Noct 58mm f/0.95 lens?
Nikon mentions that molded glass could not be as accurate.
So how many molded glass elements are there in modern consumer lenses?
How many binocular elements use molded glass?
Is this the reason for the poor resolution of modern binoculars?
Nikon's profits are down maybe 80%.
The point I made previously about small sensors applies to smartphone cameras.
I don't have one, but it seems increasingly difficult to tell if a photo has been made using a smartphone camera or a traditional camera.
Also there are about 50 different f/0.95 lenses made over the last 70 years, but I think that this new Nikon may be the best one.
What would have impressed me more is a Nikon 50mm f/0.7 lens to compete with the 1960s Zeiss lens.
However, the Z6 camera may not be made to a high enough standard for an f/0.7 lens.
Regards,
B.
- Status
