Re: [Leica] Helping kids develop

["Dan Post" <dpost@triad.rr.com>]

Gee! B.D.!
You aren't such a hardnosed badass afterall! :o)
Really- unfortunately, none of my kids were interested in photography, and I
didn't beat 'em up over it, but my grand-daughter seems to have an interest,
and even though at twelve, I gatve her a simple box camera, as her interest
grows and she becomes more knowledgable, I think that she would benefit from
trying ALL SORTS of cameras and then pick one that suits her style. Of
course, anything manual will help develop a 'feel' for what the art is all
about, and perhaps help her gain the experience to learn to control the
outcome- which is what it is all about, and keep her interest piqued without
too many failures or such to the point that she becomes discouraged!
Dan ( STILL HAVING FUN AFTER THIRTY FIVE YEARS....) Post
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 8:35 AM
Subject: [Leica] Helping kids develop


> 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.
> >
>