It is "close" to your way of thinking and in your opinion ... which is fine, for you ... glad it is.
For others, it is not "close", and especially not "very close" ... but each of us can only speak to what and how we see, just as you do. For me, the difference between Leica optics and how they render aesthetically compared to Nikon's offerings is like from Earth to Pluto, not Earth to the moon
However, I've always held that opinion and nothing I currently see or have used from Nikon has altered that opinion.
Also note that I have
extensively used a Nikon D3X with each of the best optics they had at the time including many lenses that are still current and recommended for the D800 ... 14-24, 24-70 and the 200/2 VR. I see nothing so far that changes how the lenses make images by adding 12 meg to the D3X, even if it is newer sensor technology ... I have always preferred the concept of micro-contrast for acuity of image such as employed by Leica, Schneider and Zeiss compared to other optical philosophies (which is why for 35mm work, I dumped all Nikon gear and got a A900 with all Zeiss designed AF optics). If you do not buy into that concept there's nothing that can be said to alter that, and frankly I don't care if you do or not.
"
Free thinking ideas are not welcome" and "
old boys circling the wagons" feels very dismissive of other opinions that are contrary to yours. All each of us are trying to do is select the tools that best help us express our aesthetic sensibilities or even biases ... after all it is
our work, not someone else's.
The price disparity is nothing new (especially regarding Leica), and harping on it means nothing to those who have chosen, could afford to choose as they like, and got what they wanted. I feel the exact same way about lighting gear BTW ... where the same type of debates rage daily. Folks are free to select PCB lighting, and I'll stick with Profoto for the same reasons I select certain camera's and lenses.
All the best to what ever you select ... let's make images!
-Marc