King of the Mountains

Once again the media are attempting to whip up mass hysteria about 22 men chasing a ball around. At the same time cars are sprouting flags which appear to denote those who with limited driving skills and horrifically tacky merchandise is filling the shelves.

I cannot stand football. There, I said it. I’m a 20-something bloke and I really don’t like football. 

According to the media machine I shouldn’t exist. All of the "antidote to world cup" sections I see are obviously aimed at women, there’s no sign of the supposedly intellectual channels offering content which will appeal to everyone with a few brain cells to rub together.

I’ve always found team sports like football unbelievably boring, especially after the apparently standard experiences of being shoved out onto a field that resembled the Somme to play rugby at school. Generally those of us who would rather have been doing mad things with mountain bikes and, later on, cars tried to ensure that we ended up on opposite teams, so the match wasn’t rendered unfair when we sloped off to the opposite end of the field to talk bikes. I couldn’t care less about offside rules and the amateur dramatics of overpaid whiny toddlers who will moan when they get caught cheating and moan even louder when someone else doesn’t. 

Even worse, as soon as the football finishes we’ll get non-stop tennis.

It seems that the current buzzwords around museums are relevance and accessibility. "Interpretive Centres" are appearing everywhere and all the genuinely interesting exhibits are being shunted into the back room as they’re not considered relevant.

At the same time a new fear has manifest: LOOF

LOOF, or Loss Of Original Fabric, is a term much-used by the team currently rebuilding Bluebird K7 (and I suggest you look up their website as it’s absolutely fascinating). See, when they fished K7 out of Coniston Water in 2000 they were told by various worthy people that they would be "destroying history" if they restored her to full working order. Thinking it in rather poor taste to display the wreckage in which the great Donald Campbell lost his life in 1967 they decided instead to carry on with the rebuild. Thanks to incredible patience and skill they have managed to keep pretty much all of the original structure, to the extent that many non-original parts are either replacements for components raised by divers investigating the crash in the late ’60s or replacements for parts now buried deep in the ooze at the bottom of the lake. The engine will be a replacement, but will feature many of the auxiliaries from the original unit. Anything that is simply too badly damaged to be reused will be displayed around the restored K7 in the purpose-built museum planned to house her.

In the course of the rebuild they have found evidence of the alterations carried out to K7 during her working life, common to most machinery. There are vestiges of flaps and rudders removed early in her career, evidence of alterations made when the original Beryl engine was replaced by the Orpheus. So the restoration will be a snapshot of the boat as she was on the morning of the 4th of January 1967, just before the engine was fired up for that final run.

Given the fact that components are regularly replaced it’s hard to see why sections of the museum community are so defensive about restorations to working order. Mallard, for example, will likely never steam again despite strong evidence that British Rail replaced her original frames and most likely many other parts when the majority of the A4 fleet was broken up. It’d disturb the originality too much, apparently. Suggest that the prototype APT or Deltic should be restored to working order and you’ll get horrified looks, from the same people currently spending millions on Flying Scotsman.

If you ask the general public then you will invariably be told that people want to see working exhibits. The massive crowds attracted by XH558, the only airworthy Avro Vulcan at shows bears this out. I will always remember the spontaneous standing ovation that greeted the first RIAT takeoff.

It doesn’t seem a difficult equation. If you want to get people interested then give them spectacle. Give them a fire-breathing blue boat, the deafening howl of a Vulcan takeoff, the rumble of diesels. The historical importance can come later - they’ll want to know more after they’ve seen and heard it. The Imperial War Museum know this with their regular tank demonstrations (which look huge fun and a reason why I’d love to work there).

Dead metal won’t make future engineers.

If, like me, you hunt for older photography gear then chances are that you’ve got a few old cases hanging around. Quite often you find an immaculate camera or lens in a case that has obviously taken all the knocks on behalf of the contents. You might find yourself thinking in terms of throwing them away. Well, think again.

You can restore those old black leather (or faux leather) camera and lens cases using shoe polish and a sponge. You’ll probably want a pair of gloves too, in order to avoid spending ages cleaning polish off your hands afterwards. Obviously if there are any fabric parts then the polish needs to be kept away from them as it won’t come out easily!

Take a lump of the polish and rub it on the scruffy parts of the case. If the whole thing has faded then apply liberally, but concentrate on scuffs and cracks. Once you’ve covered all the rough patches then put the case aside to dry for a while.

When you come back, take the sponge and rub it gently all over the case. This will remove the loose polish and shine the surface. You may need to repeat the process depending on your tastes - the last lens case I refurbished required three or four applications to get the polish really ingrained in the scuffed or cracked areas. The polish should just wipe off any press studs or buckles.  A quick wipe with a dry paper towel will enable you to check that the polish isn’t likely to come off on your hands in huge quantities while handling the item afterwards.

The scruffy case with a mint lens has now become an excellent case with a mint lens. Good, eh?

I’ve just been reading a blog in which the writer attempts to explain what a prospective DSLR buyer should be looking for, obviously including a few brands and some comparative prices. It’s a well-written piece, yet like so much mainstream photography writing it seems to favour Canon and Nikon.

I should probably put the cards out early here. I’ve always owned Pentax SLRs, as it meant I could swipe my Dad’s lenses from his 1970s K2. My first SLR was a K1000 that I bought used in about 1996 and I now use a K-m, with an MX for nostalgia and the fun of home processing black and white. Yet as I never really owned any decent lenses of my own I came to the DSLR market with an open mind. I looked at Nikon, I considered Canon and Sony. But I picked the Pentax.

Put simply, the K-m was the best camera I could get for my budget. In terms of features it was well ahead of equivalently-priced models from other brands, and the sample photos I saw posted in reviews were first rate. I just love how simple it is. I can put any Pentax lens made since 1975 on the front and it will work, the superb image quality of the earlier manual glass more than making up for the slight complication it brings. As the shake reduction is handled by the camera body all lenses benefit, even the ancient and gigantic zoom in the previous post.

Meanwhile the base Nikon cannot auto focus with all their current lenses, as they don’t appear to have a standard screw drive like Pentax do. Ok, Pentax do make the SDM system with lens-mounted motors, but to the best of my knowledge all of those lenses also support the screw drive, so they’d work on my K-m. Canon seems to have an on-off relationship with shake reduction, requiring you to buy special lenses equipped with it. Sony do have in-body shake reduction and can use the final design of Minolta lenses, but again there seems to be complication in that not all Minolta lenses will fit.

I’m well aware that Pentax don’t offer full frame DSLRs, but I was never in the market for a £2000 camera in the first place. I’m also aware that thanks to their rather short-sighted (IMO) decision to drop the K-m they no longer offer a true entry-level DSLR. But the simplicity and the fact that every lens will work more than makes up for it. As I’ve said before, all of their DSLRs can be as simple or as involved as you like. In green mode with an auto focus lens your Grandmother could take decent photos, put an old K series prime on the front and select manual and you’re back using your old K1000.

I suspect part of the problem is that a major high street chain no longer stocks Pentax products, so people who are seeking out advice from supposed experts about which DSLR to buy will not be getting a full range of brands - it’s Canon, Nikon or Sony. Over on the Pentax User forum we’ve had some good tales about experiences with sales staff, generally the reaction when you mention Pentax to them. The cameras aren’t hard to find, but you do have to be willing to compare reviews and make your decision on the basis of them. Very few are lucky enough to live close to a retailer with actual stock that can be handled before a decision is made. That said, the high street presence of another major electrical retailer does seem to be stocking Pentax gear now, although with a slightly odd selection of lenses when I looked in their Cardiff branch.

So before you hand over your money to the first person to wave a camera-shaped object at you, do your research. Read widely. It doesn’t take much knowledge to work out whether an online review was written by someone who understands the subject, as opposed to the dingbats who infest many review sites.

Adventures in old cameras continue. The recent acquisition of a 35-70mm zoom which has been widely tipped as one of the finest of its type saw a Pentax SFX arrive attached to it.

The SFX its cheaper sister the SF7 were the first cameras to use the Pentax auto focus lens mount still in use today, with a motor in the camera body. Doing it this way, as opposed to the earlier ME F with its dedicated zoom carrying four AA batteries, allows lighter and simpler lenses. The SFX supports the usual full auto, shutter/aperture priority and metered manual modes, and adds the sophistication of two Program modes for action or depth. 

Styling is brick-like. This is a big, chunky 1980s camera, even more so if you add the replacement grip to allow it to use AA batteries. That said, it isn’t uncomfortable to use. The flash hotshoe positioned above the hand grip is a neat touch, helping with balance and red eye reduction. Other than that the design is such that anyone familiar with SLR cameras could pick it up and use it. 

Why two generations? Well, I also thought about a far earlier Pentax camera that I also own and love. The MX

The MX was the semi-professional model from the M series, an attempt by Pentax to follow the trend started by the Olympus OM series. In many ways the MX is a smaller version of the KX, one of the three original K mount SLRs. Thanks to a nifty window arrangement the aperture is displayed in the viewfinder as is the shutter speed. This is purely mechanical - you see the aperture ring on the lens and the shutter speed is displayed via a dial coupled to the control on the top plate. In fact, this camera is all mechanical. Rather than the electronic shutter of the other M series bodies Pentax fitted the MX with a mechanical shutter, so that it can carry on working without batteries. The sole purpose of the two button cells here is to power the light meter, a simple LED display with a green light indicating correct exposure. The camera also offers a self timer, depth of field preview, and exposure compensation. It is possible to add a motor drive but winding on film by hand is hardly strenuous and the extra bulk of the winder detracts somewhat from the neat MX. Fitted with the 40mm "pancake" lens this would be a pocket SLR, although it’s equally capable of using any lens with a K mount:

A little silly perhaps, that being the monstrous 85-210mm zoom from the original 1975 K range of lenses. But the camera will work perfectly with this lens (as will my current K-m).

In many ways the SFX appears a much better idea. It has auto everything, so complete beginners will manage to take usable photos assuming that they wait for the focussing light or beep before pressing the button. It has a built-in flash which interfaces seamlessly with the Program mode. Add the Battery Grip and you can power it from AAs, which are readily available pretty much everywhere.

Yet the MX is very hard to put down, once used. It really isn’t complicated to use despite only offering metered manual mode, you simply focus, choose an aperture, and set a shutter speed that makes the green light come on. A basic understanding of depth of field and how to interpret the focussing screen will enable you to produce perfectly acceptable images. It’s considerably smaller than the SFX and lighter too.

A good MX will cost between £50 and £150 depending on condition and demand, the black version tends to be rarer and more expensive. Meanwhile, an SFX body can be picked up for under £20 in working order. The older camera is just far more sought-after, and the current crop of gadget manufacturers would do well to realise why.

With an MX you have tactile feedback from controls. Everything clicks into place, you know that you’ve moved it because you can feel it. Compare this to the love of touchpads where you have very little fine control, or the bizarre rotary dial things found on a certain brand of MP3 players. There are no menus on an MX, each control does one job and only one job. It doesn’t take ages to perform simple tasks or beep annoyingly when you cycle through menus, all you get is quiet clicks as you turn dials.

In short, buy one. Ideally with a 50mm lens attached as this is the best all-rounder. Then buy a roll of film, get out there and use it. 

According to recent reports the Giulia d’Abundo will soon be heading to that great ferryport in the sky. People may remember her better as Brittany Ferries Quiberon, or in her original guise as the Nils Dacke for various Baltic operators.

Built in 1975 for Svenska Rederi AB Öresund she would pass through a number of operators before joining the BF fleet in 1982. She would stay with them until 2003, operating on most of their routes. In 1982 she was regarded as the flagship, ideal for the 24hr sailing to Santander.  

I first found a slightly scruffy Quiberon during the late 1990s, when a family holiday unusually departed from Plymouth rather than Portsmouth. The weather forecast offered gale force 7-8 and yet the ship handled admirably, although the number of groaning green things sprawled on the decks posed a slight problem to those of us attempting to reach the restaurant. A few years later I saw her on the Portsmouth-Caen link, covering for the late delivery of the Mont St Michel.

Ferries have a far harder life than any other passenger ship, and the thirty-five years Quiberon clocked up under her various names is a very respectable innings. She had her problems, an infamous engine explosion that killed a crew member and saw passengers directed to lifeboats will be remembered by those aboard for many years to come, although she was quickly repaired and returned to service. Yet the loss of another grand old lady of the channel will be mourned. She was only five years younger than the QEII, yet there will be no ceremonial departure for her. If she’s lucky she’ll at least get to Alang with some dignity under her own power.

A few years ago I crossed from Portsmouth to Caen aboard the Normandie, one of the second generation of BF ships. While waiting to depart the berth on the return trip I noticed that several white marks were painted on the quayside to align the passenger gangway with the various ships. Faded, but still legible, were the marks for Quiberon, Duke of Normandy, and Val de Loire. I wonder how many others will notice the marks and remember the ships?

I spent a fair chunk of Saturday adding marker posts to a nearby unsurfaced right of way. I did this as part of a volunteer effort drawing its members from several groups, the posts and permission to install them being provided by the local County Council.

The posts are intended to point users of the right of way in the right direction, as there are tracks wandering all over the open moorland area in question. Only one of these tracks is the proper right of way, the rest are off limits to motor vehicles. 

There seem to be two sorts of illegal user. There are those who know that it’s illegal, couldn’t care less, and will quite possibly resort to aggressive behaviour if challenged. There is little that can be done to educate these morons beyond taking a few covert photos and reporting them to the Police, who take a very dim view of their antics and can seize vehicles belonging to repeat offenders. It isn’t "telling tales", these idiots are the reason for our lanes being shut.

The second and more common sort are those who are simply not aware that they are doing anything wrong. They believe that it’s ok to ride an unregistered quad there because "it’s public land", or that they can drive wherever they feel like because their mate told them so. Quite often, if approached with a firm but friendly word, they’ll listen and be educated. If they’d fallen in with a reputable club they would probably have done the right thing in the first place. But again, their ignorance risks closure of our lanes. They aren’t usually members of any group and don’t therefore see any of the guidelines published by the various organisations.

One of the greatest problems is how to educate these people. In my part of the world the local press are very anti-4x4, although I suspect that this has more to do with them enjoying stirring muck and selling papers. As a result, the chances of getting any articles into there are slim indeed. Broadcast media simply aren’t interested, especially as the problem involves some knowledge of rights of way law and needs a greater attention span than that of the average mayfly. It also involves rural areas, where we don’t have chain coffee shops and their 3G phone won’t work. Handing out leaflets may help, but the worry is that most of them will end up in a hedge somewhere and of course they only reach the people to whom they are handed.

Those of us in the sensible laning world will always do our best to get the message around and lead by example, but there’s nothing we can do about the lone wolf types who either don’t know or don’t care about the law. A good move might be to run guided laning trips and festivals in the same vein as the recent Heart of Wales Walking Festival, if we can face down the inevitable bobble-hatted nonsense-mongers. But again, the ignorant probably wouldn’t turn up.

Not that this would bother us, as we’d simply go laning. But it would be far better if we could educate just a few in the proper way of doing things.

If, like me, you’ve just bought a digital SLR camera then you may well have picked one that can use older film lenses. First, a caveat: Not all can do this with equal success. You may get some slightly unpredictable results. In my experience Pentax are fine, but I can’t comment on others.

With that out of the way, some advice on buying lenses. Older lenses can suffer from dust or worse fungus inside the lens. Check for both, and don’t pay top price for a lens with either. I would personally avoid any fungus-afflicted lenses as there would presumably be a risk of transferring fungal spores to the mechanism of the camera.

Dust, providing that it is not in ridiculous quantities, doesn’t affect image quality hugely. You’re unlikely to see noticeable blemishes in your photos but you may notice a loss of sharpness. If the lens is cheap, then it’s probably worth a go. 

Never be tempted to try to remove dust by dismantling the lens. Unless you’re a trained technician with a clean room then you will make things worse rather than better! 

Obviously you should check that the focus, zoom, and aperture rings move smoothly. It can also be worth checking for excessive oil or grease on the aperture blades. 

If you buy your lens from a good camera shop then you shouldn’t have any trouble with these. However, buying online can be a bit of a lottery. Some sellers will provide plenty of photos and assurances that the lens is dust and fungus free. In these cases you should have little trouble with gaining a refund if the item is not as advertised. If you’re interested in 28-80mm or similar zooms, then try searching for film SLRs that are being sold with one. The camera is usually worth next to nothing in an internet auction, so you can buy it solely for the lens. 

Do your research before buying. Some lenses don’t attract much interest at all, quite often because another similar model is a far better performer for similar money. If you can’t find any information on a lens then caution is advised. It may be great, but then again it may be a complete dog. There is, however, considerable entertainment to be had from buying the cheapest lens you can find and playing around with it. While it won’t be useful for serious photography any strange effects it has could well result in some interesting images.

I’ve had my Km for a couple of months now, and shot around 500 images.

The Km is Pentax’s budget digital SLR camera, borrowing its name from a 1970s vintage mechanical SLR. In the rest of the world it sells as the K2000, again a name partially borrowed from that photographic icon the all-manual K1000. I, like many SLR enthusiasts, started with a K1000 aged about 14 and still have it. 

First impressions are good. The camera feels solidly put together and has a pleasing heft to it. Pentax have used a metal chassis rather than the plastic commonly found in lower end SLRs. It’s surprisingly compact too, in the tradition of the old M-series Pentaxes. Controls are well laid out and labelled, to the extent that I’ve only needed to consult the manual in order to find out things such as how to print directly from the camera (more on this later). Those who find some cameras too small for their hands to operate easily will like the Km.

A major advantage of the camera is that it can be as easy or as complex to use as you like. Select Auto Picture Mode and your grandmother could take good photos. Select Manual and you’re back with your old K1000. It is also possible to select from the usual auto modes for portraits, landscapes, night, shutter/aperture priority, etc.

Serious enthusiasts will probably switch off at this point, but another handy feature is the ability to tweak the auto modes. For example, as delivered the camera will pop the flash up and use it as it sees fit. A quick stroll through the menus and you can safely take photos in areas with a "No Flash" sign, as it will only deploy if you press the flash button. 

The camera includes image stabilisation, which does wonders for reducing camera shake. In the old days, if you could hear the mirror raise and lower (a clatter rather than a click) then you knew to expect a horrible blur when the film came back along with a smug little note about camera shake. With the Km, you can take astonishingly good photos in low light. A brief test with the camera hand held at dusk produced an image with only slight blurring. As a useful side effect, the camera can also agitate its image sensor to shake dust away. This can be set to happen automatically when you switch on. 

Continuing on the subject of dust, there is a very neat option in the menu to check for dust on the sensor. Simply point the camera at a uniform light-coloured surface, follow the instructions on the screen, and you will get an image showing whether there is any dust, and if so, where it is. Another option locks the mirror up to allow access with a puffer bulb. For obvious reasons you should never touch the sensor. So far, the self cleaning seems to work.

As with most digital SLRs, the large LCD on the back does not act as a viewfinder. It displays the settings that you have chosen. It is possible to take a preview image in order to check things such as white balance, and review photos. The screen also comes into play when you use the built-in image editing software, which is a lot more useful than you might think. It won’t replace a photo editing package on a computer but it will correct problems with brightness and colour intensity, as well as offering some neat digital filter effects.

This came in handy when I decided to try the Pictbridge function. For those who’ve not encountered it, Pictbridge is a standard allowing digital cameras to print images directly when connected to a printer supporting the standard. I tried it with a spare Canon iP90 and got excellent results, although I did have to use the built-in image editing options on the camera to bump the brightness up a couple of notches. Obviously this is an expensive method of printing, but for a few photos it is easier than copying them all to a computer and printing in the normal fashion.

Battery life is much better than expected. The same set of AA batteries that came with the camera are still in there and show no sign of expiring. A paper manual and CD of photo editing software were also included, although I have yet to try the latter.

I bought my Km in a kit with an 18-55mm zoom lens, which is a perfectly acceptable bit of kit. As the camera uses the existing Pentax K mount it is possible to use any K mount film lens, although for obvious reasons you may want to restrict your purchases to ones equipped with auto focus. I have tested mine with 28-80, 35-80, and 100-300 zoom lenses, all of which produced fine results. Unlike some other DSLRs the image stabilisation mechanics are in the body, so you can fit these older lenses and still enjoy the benefits.

In short, if you already have Pentax K mount SLRs, or simply like the sound of something a bit more advanced than a compact digital camera, the Km is well worth a look. 

A regular source of entertainment for pretty much the whole planet, would be an accurate summing up of local newspaper letters pages. Being unable to string a coherent argument together and having political views that Stalin would have considered authoritarian are no barriers to expression in this media. Let’s look at some of the regular formats:

Anti-EU rant. Usually the same people every week. Their arguments are never rebuffed because nobody else can be bothered to wade through the irrelevant gibberish they include and blow large smoking holes in them. Generally they keep coming back and become more virulent if anyone is bored enough to attempt to engage them in battle. Popular with editors for their habit of writing reams of rubbish that can more or less be guaranteed to be both clean and acceptable to large numbers of Wail or Ex-press reading noddies. Let’s face it, if they believe the Wail they’ll swallow anything the local press can manufacture report.

Religious fruitcake. Often from a completely different part of the country and ranting about the stage version of Jerry Springer or a show suggesting that it’s actually prefectly acceptable to be gay. They’ve probably sent the same letter to local papers in every area that the touring show is visiting, which shows admirable research skills if little else between the ears. Alternatively you may find the general evangelical gibberish (extra points if it includes bible quotes) or the screeching about how Jonathan Ross/the Internet/men with long hair will lead to the moral destruction of the universe. The fact that most people could now be classified as Atheist, Agnostic, or just not giving a damn clearly passes them by.

Political bitchfest. Usually related to town councils or groups. Can be amusing if you know one of the participants and therefore trust their opinions rather more than those of J. Random Jobsworth. Another editorial favourite, guaranteed to fill pages for weeks if not months. Some can last for years. 

Anti-war/hippy. One word of advice: Study International Politics to degree level, then you will actually be qualified to comment. The world is not an episode of "Care Bears" and there are some unpleasant people out there who would respond to your offer of a cup of herbal tea by pouring the hot water over you and then beheading you with the organic biscuits. Mind you, after a few weeks of reading these letters a fair number of normal people might be moved to similar sentiments. 

Council bashing. Usually by people with ulterior motives. Especially amusing when local answer to slum landlords berates council for allegedly resettling ex-cons in the area. Amusing as landlord has made most of his fortune and position from renting dodgy flats to the very people whose existence in the area he is moaning about. Other favourites include hysterical shrieking about how a new policy will have Ghenghis Khan setting up his camp outside the bandstand within a week. Popular with editors who wish to make equally hysterical claims in headlines.

Generalised rambling. Our best codebreakers have as yet failed to understand the point these people are attempting to make. Preliminary findings suggest that their ramblings could be condensed to "things were better in the old days". If these were the same old days when people regularly died of flu and hospital treatments generally involved hot pitch and screaming then it’s uncertain how they could be better. Often includes an allegedly amusing anecdote which could well have inspired a Last of the Summer Wine episode. Evidence that greater care of the elderly is needed to keep their minds active. I favour mandatory nitrous oxide installations for drivers over 65 and free motocross lessons for all pensioners.