Hacker News Reader

Comment by perardi | Hacker News Reader

I fear for Nikon, even though I suspect they have lifelines, given Bank of Japan’s quantitative easing. They’re the least diversified of the big camera companies.

Sony has…a lot, from semiconductors to financial instruments. Canon has high-end video, scanners, and enterprise printing and copying. Nikon has photography-oriented cameras, some medical optics, and semiconductor equipment, and that’s about it. They’re just not the sprawling conglomerate that can absorb losses as easily as Sony.

Sigh. I’m a camera nerd, and I hate to see the market shrink further. I know it’s going to—cell phone cameras accomplish the actual job to be done that most people have, which is snapshots of kids and cats. And, interchangeable lens cameras are getting to the point they’re over-serving the high-end market with ever-fancier lenses and marginal sensor improvements, with no real workflow improvements.

View on HN

Nikon also has a well respected sports-optics division (binoculars, spotting scopes), although they are also seeing a ton of competition in that marketplace as well.

Yup, I totally forgot about that.

Though that still gets to my point that they make optics, and pretty much just optics. Makes it hard to pivot (ugh, sorry) to anything else, from a corporate mentality standpoint.

If I'm mistaken, Nikon existed the scope business earlier this year.

I wasn't aware of that, but you appear to be right [0]. The spotting scopes I mentioned are more like telescopes meant for viewing terrestrial objects such as wildlife, shooting targets, etc.

[0] https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/gun-control-nikon-wi...

Do more boutique camera companies like Leica just survive on their (what I assume to be) large margins?

I imagine so.

At the risk of angering Leica fans: they’re shipping not exactly state of the art technology at very high prices, with a lot of the R&D actually being done by Panasonic. (Or, in the case of their Lux compact cameras, they’re literally shipping Panasonic cameras with a different sticker on them.)

Look at the Leica Q2: it costs $5000. The Fuji X100V costs $1300. I know there’s a bigger sensor in the Q2, but, c’mon, there’s not $2000 worth of magic hiding in there.

Ehhhh... I've owned a bunch of digital Leica gear, and I'll flatly say that the M lenses produce some of the best images you'll see from a raw optical pipeline. A 50mm APO Summicron is an exceptional lens for its optical characteristics; same goes for most of their 'cron and 'lux models.

By contrast, Leica's digital M bodies have always been at least a generation behind... at their time of release. The way you deal with this is correct exposure discipline, such that there's less to deal with in post. Newer M bodies have gotten much better, however.

The Q is a really interesting line, since I assume it's a collaborative project between Panasonic, Tower Jazz, and Leica. Frankly, the images for both the Q and Q2 are outstanding, and I'd throw down another $5k for a 50mm Q2. If you seriously think an X100V can compete with a Q2 for full pipeline imaging (capture to print), you're nuts. I've personally seen large prints come out of my Epson P800 from an XE-3 + 23/1.4 and my Q2 and the noise reduction artifacts inherent to the X-trans filter are noticeable on paper. If all you're doing is posting to IG or Flickr, Fuji is amazing for the money.

> By contrast, Leica's digital M bodies have always been at least a generation behind... at their time of release

The M9 was revolutionary in 2009, an 18MP full-frame sensor in a peer-comparatively tiny body. The M Monochrom in 2012 is the only major first-party camera to release w/o a Bayer filter with massive increases in resolution and sensitivity. They've been riding the "classic rangefinder experience" for some time since with incremental improvements, but the early digital M bodies were anything but behind. The recent M10-R and M10-M are also competitive sensor-wise.

You can just use M lenses on other bodies. With autofocus, even.

> they’re shipping not exactly state of the art technology at very high prices

I think that misses the point: when you buy Leica, you're not buying technology. It's not a technology company, it's a luxury brand. You buy Leica over Canon, Fuji or Panasonic for the same reason you buy Rolex over Casio, Swatch or Seiko.

Oh I am fully aware of “Leica as jewelry”, I just didn’t want to immediately wallop that straw man.

There's an interesting relationship between Leica, Sinar, and Panasonic for sure - Panasonic is seems to be behind the firmware in even the older Leica M series cameras, which are definitely made by Leica. The SL2 is essentially a Panasonic SR1 with a nicer body. The Leica S series medium format cameras use similiar looking firmware, and the the internals of the newest S3 power the Sinar S30|45 digital back. The Lux Cameras where just a different sticker though. The Q2, while also probably built by Panasonic, has no actual equal in terms of lenses. The lens they put on that body is stellar.

Having used an M camera briefly, they aren't worth the price new, but used they are really great values that are built like nothing else. When you tire of them, you can sell them back for what you paid, sometimes more!

Agree on M models not being worth the money new. I've always bought gently used bodies 2 years after release. Still, the M-system is capable of nothing that any other non-rangefinder can do: which is to capture the decisive moment. There's no blackout period and you see what's beyond the framelines, such that you can anticipate the composition. The Fuji X100 comes close.

Fuji X-Pro line is direct Leica competitor. I never owned Leica, but I love my X-Pro cameras. Rangefinders are so interesting to use and X-Pros give you variability - you can use optical rangefinder, mix of optical/digital rangefinder with focus peaking, fully digital view finder or back screen, if desired. This gives you a lot of flexibility as different things works best for different lenses. Physically, camera is very nicely built and joy to handle, because all important settings can be set mechanically.

Leica also makes microscopes (I use one of them regularly).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com