[Leica] Helping kids develop

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

In the For What Ever It's Worth Department....and this is a generic
contribution to this thread, rather than a direct reply to Tina's question,
as I already said 'give that very talented kid the M4.'

I'm of the pretty firm opinion that if a kid has talent and inclination in
photography, any camera that lets them express and develop that will
do....It can be new, old, mint, beat to hell....And I don't know that I buy
the argument that they need to concentrate on one camera or format...I think
tasting a lot of possibilities works just as well.....A Pentax K1000 - or
ME - is a great star
ter camera, because both offer manual control, and there are "billions and
billions" of cheap lenses available used and new....An old 2 1/4 isn't
bad...The Leica thing is great if you're talking about someone with the
obvious talent and interest of a Tina Jr., but for most kids it strikes me
as overkill as an initial camera....again, unless you're talking about an
old screw mount....If a kid wants to get into rangefinders, pick up a Bessa
R....

But far, far, far more important than the camera is your attitude as a
parent......Encourage, encourage, encourage, however.....offer HONEST
criticism....I told all three of my kids - all budding artists, two of whom
are photographers, starting when they were very young, that if I thought
something was good, I would tell them, but if I thought something sucked,
I'd also tell them - and tell them why I felt that way....I think that
technique as served them - and me - well, as they kept bringing their work
to me, and the work got better and better, and we still have good
relationships...:-)

B. D.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Buzz
> Hausner
> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 8:03 AM
> To: 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us'
> Subject: RE: [Leica] 35mm, 90mm, and now 50 mm?
>
>
> The issue, Matt, is that each of the various Leica lenses is
> different, not
> better or worse, but different from its brothers and sisters.  Each lens
> fills a certain purpose and the photographer must decide which purpose she
> or he wishes to fulfill.  It is not so simple a matter "as Summicrons are
> sharper than Sumiluxes" (and I am not saying that they are).
> Which lens to
> buy or use is a highly subjective decision based upon numerous variables;
> image quality, lens speed, lens size and heft, lens shade
> configuration, and
> on and on, depending upon what matters to you the photographer.  I, for
> instance, favor smaller and lighter gear and thus prefer a pre-aspheric 35
> Summicron to its aspheric sibling, in spite of the aspheric's redoubtable
> sharpness wide open.
>
> It sounds as if you have given a great deal of thought to the
> lens qualities
> that count most to you.  I haven't used them all, but I have to
> imagine that
> all Leica lenses produced in the past fifteen years will give you
> some sort
> of "buzz."  However, I propose that at and above a certain level of
> equipment the "buzz" derives more from the capability of the photographer
> than the quality of the photographer's lens.
>
> 	Buzz Hausner
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Morgan [mailto:mattmorgan@pdseurope.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 2:24 PM
> To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject: Re: [Leica] 35mm, 90mm, and now 50 mm?
>
>
> >>Why compare 1.4 to 2?
> Did you really expect them to be comparable?<<
>
> Why not? I don't know, which is why I'm asking the questions. My
> perception,
> maybe wrongly, is that this is all about the superior quality of
> Leica glass
> and the quality of the image it produces. I didn't know that there are
> different levels of quality based on the speed of the lens. If
> this is true,
> I might have made different choices. Unless you are just talking about
> f-stops and not maximum apertures.
>
> I'm acquiring my kit at the moment at one major piece per month.
> The first,
> with the M6 TTL .85, was the 35mm f2. The results from this lens are truly
> astounding, so I expected, maybe with slight differences, that the image
> quality of all the Leica lenses would be on some sort of par and
> that's why
> it's worth spending over 10,000 GBP on the Leica kit.
>
> Now, instead of `expecting' the same quality, I find myself `hoping' that
> the 75mm 1.4 will be equal to the 35mm f2. However, does your
> message imply
> that it can only be compared to the 50mm f1.4, and that my next lens after
> the 75mm, which is the 90mm APO f2, can only be compared to the 35mm f2?
> Apologies if I've misunderstood.
>
> I pick up my first results from my new 24mm f2.8 today. Hopefully, I will
> gain a better idea of the differences in Leica glass at different speed
> lenses.
>
> >>Did you compare the same scenes?<<
>
> Not a test card, but pretty much the same scenes. Mostly of my
> baby daughter
> both interior and exterior, that's why I notice the difference.
>
> So are you saying that if I expose the 50 `lux at f2, it would be on a par
> with the 35 `cron wide open?
>
> Because I'm just in the `acquisition' stage at the moment, and want to
> ensure that I make the best and informed choices, (purpose of the LUG), it
> could be that I'm just thinking too critically about these
> things. Once this
> stage is over and I accept and get used to the gear I have and
> focus on the
> projects and images I want to produce, this constant stream of comparing
> will hopefully fade away.
>
> Although for my own purposes of use I want fast lenses, my ultimate aim is
> to replicate the fantastic quality, and `buzz' that it generated, that I
> first saw with a great photographer in Australia years ago with his Leica
> images. They just `snapped' out of the picture and the more I found out
> about Leica and the images it is capable of producing, I have
> never seen any
> equal from any other cameras and lenses.
>
> Thanks, Matt.
>