It's interesting to see how manual the process still is.
I would've thought for something like manufacturing glass, you would be able to make the process more or less entirely automated.
I would've thought for something like manufacturing glass, you would be able to make the process more or less entirely automated.
For such small batches of glass (500kgs is nothing!) with very tight tolerances across lots of variables, and considerable compositional diversity (Nikon isn't melting just one glass, it's melting quite a few, to do clever things with dispersion), there are so many variables that you can't really automate everything.
(As a glass melting nerd, I'd really love to see all of the proprietary information that they left out - but I guess that's why it isn't there.)
Is it mainly automated or more manual?
Also does it have any differences like more iron or other additives to lend strength or conversely less to lend clarity?
For lower volume (or higher tolerance materials), the overflow downdraw method and updraw methods are used, mainly for display glass.
But:
> the only people rolling glass are small-scale stained glass manufacturers.
What about:
- the glass used for solar panels
- the glass used for wire bonded glass
- patterned glass
AFAIK those are all made using rollers.
https://leicastoremiami.com/collections/leica-summicron-c-le...
I’m not the only one, photographer Ming Thein has complained about the sample variation of Leica’s hand made lenses too.
The hand crafted nature of their range finder system is far from perfect and for the price it really should be better.
This reminded me of a programme I saw a couple of years ago about making a perfect sphere. From what I can remember they said that was hand finished. I've just done a quick search and it looks like it would have been Achim Leistner making the 1Kg sphere.
From http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s2038283.htm and more info at https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14229-roundest-object...
Narration: The sphere started life as an ingot of pure silicon 28, brought here from Germany. Silicon crystal was chosen as the material because of its uniform atomic structure. The silicon ingot is cut and ground into a rough ball shape. Then Achim starts the painstaking process of transforming it into a near perfect sphere.
Achim Leistner: And this can only be done by hand because you actually have to feel what is happening. When you’re taking off a nanometre or 5 nanometres, or 10 nanometres or 20 nanometres, some of the errors we’re trying to correct are in the vicinity of only a few nanometres.
Narration: That’s a few billionths of a metre! If this sphere was the size of the earth, that accuracy would be equivalent to changes in height of only 4 or 5 metres over the entire surface of the planet. But that’s only half the challenge. To redefine the weight standard as a universal constant, the team also have to count the number of atoms in the sphere.
Satellites?
Fountain pens - Sailor, Nakaya, Namiki for instance.
Oh, and knives. Definitely knives.
In their higher end items, they tend to employ traditional craft techniques (zaratsu polishing; urushi lacquer to name but two) which are incredibly labour and skill intensive.
This in stark contrast to some of their Swiss, in general more prestigeous counterparts.
(Do yourself a favour and have a look at the Grand Seiko website - they have some quite interesting info on their craft techniques. Not to mention that it is watch porn squared.
Admittedly, that documentary is made by the marketing department for the sake factory, but it's still an interesting video.
My guess is the cheap lenses are fully automated, using fewer actual glass components, without features like 'ED' glass which requires all these extra manual processes and firings.
It's probably more interesting to compare the differences between two lenses of similar focal length and aperture. With that kind of comparison, the kind of differences that you'll find are that the more expensive lenses tend to have metal instead of plastic frames, may have optical stabilization in the lens, fancier or faster autofocus systems, better sealing against water and dust, and more advanced coatings on the optical elements. In terms of the glass itself, you will also generally find that the more expensive lenses use more optical elements with potentially more complex shapes (eg. aspherical elements) to reduce distortion, so they tend to have more glass than the cheaper lenses. Given how many other factors contribute to the price differences, I doubt that you actually find order of magnitude differences in the price of unground lens blanks of similar size destined for cheap vs high-end camera lenses.
[The 55-200 also has an ED element for $150, but that looks like a sale effect, with an original price of $350]
They still have two plants in Japan where high-spec lenses and bodies are built. I think the criteria is "how hard is it for us to build", not ED (etc.) glass: The new 105mm f/1.4 and 200-500mm f/5.6 both have a lot of ED glass but are made in China.
There is still enough demand and value attached to "made in Japan" for Cosina to make vintage throwback "Voigtlander" lenses in Japan, and for Converse to make high-quality Chuck Taylor sneakers there.