Southwest Face of Everest - camera?

N

nickthetasmaniac

Veteran
Local time
4:28 AM
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
2,572
G'day all, I have a delightfully obscure question for the brains trust.

Can anyone tell me the camera used on the first ascent of the Southwest Face of Everest (1975, Doug Scott and Dougal Haston)?

Chris Bonington's book about the expedition 'Everest the Hard Way' had extensive appendices that went into detail about the logistics and equipment used on the trip, including (if I recall correctly), the photographic setup. In my head it was a Pentax MX, but that can't be right given the trip happened in 75 and the MX was released in 76...

Does anyone have a copy of the book they could check? Mine seems to have disappeared during house moves :(

Thanks!
 
My best guess would be Olympus Om-1. The camera was introduced in 1972 and if my memory serves me correctly, Sir Christian Bonington was an OM-1 user....
 
I'm pretty sure he used Pentax cameras and the MX does ring a bell to me despite the dates not matching up... I have read the book, I just don't have it to hand for reference!


Simon
 
"Olympus intended to call the camera the M-1, but Leica objected because of their M-series rangefinder camera, and the decision was made to switch to OM-1. A classic dynasty was born that's now with the OM-4Ti.

Introduced into the era of psychedelic music and flared trousers, the OM-1 has a timeless look that's as desirable today as it was over 20 years ago. Fashionable from the first, the OM series found favour with the likes of Lichfield and Bailey, and even went on expeditions with Sir Chris Bonington."

download by Greg Yavorsky, on Flickr

images-5 by https://www.flickr.com/photos/156629749@N02/
 
Deardorff38 said:
"Olympus intended to call the camera the M-1, but Leica objected because of their M-series rangefinder camera, and the decision was made to switch to OM-1. A classic dynasty was born that's now with the OM-4Ti.

Introduced into the era of psychedelic music and flared trousers, the OM-1 has a timeless look that's as desirable today as it was over 20 years ago. Fashionable from the first, the OM series found favour with the likes of Lichfield and Bailey, and even went on expeditions with Sir Chris Bonington."

download by Greg Yavorsky, on Flickr

images-5 by https://www.flickr.com/photos/156629749@N02/
Click to expand...


Bonington himself may have been an OM user, but that doesn’t mean it was the camera used for the summit push (although it may well have been).

FWIW, Bonington never actually made the summit on the Southwest Face expedition.
 
I don't have the book, so i can't look it up for you. Bonington was the expedition leader and had good connections from his former journalistic activity. I don't have a dog in the fight so let us know when you find the answer...
 
Hmmm doing some digging it seems to be oft-repeated internet folklore that Bonington took an OM1 to the summit of Everest, but details are vague. A few places say '75, but he didn't personally make the summit until '85.

Seems like it's the likely answer for the Southwest Face expedition, but I might have to just buy a copy to find out :)
 
This is a complete aside but on June 8, 1924, George Mallory and Andrew Irvine left their camp below the Mount Everest summit on a mission to be the first mountaineers to ascend it. They were never to be heard from alive again. Mallory's body was eventually located in 1999. However I believe they would have used the North Face ascent.

It is known that Mallory or possibly Irvine was carrying a Vest Pocket Kodak loaned by another climber in the expedition, and a great deal of interest has been exhibited in finding it in the expectation that any photos it contains may answer the question - did they reach the summit before their deaths. A number of searches have proposed but there seems to have been nothing definite yet.

https://www.alanarnette.com/blog/20...-continuing-search-for-malloy-irvines-camera/
 
Peter, I’ve read about that, it would be fascinating if the camera were found.

That said, I’m firmly of the view that ‘firsts’ don’t count if you don’t come back alive.
 
On the final page of his 1989 book "Mountaineer", Chris Bonington says:

"I changed to Olympus cameras in 1974 with the introduction of its compact single lens reflex system. All my pictures in this book since 1974 (Changabang) are taken on Olympus cameras and lenses, using Kodachrome 25 and 64 above the snowline and Kodachrome 200 below."

Earlier in the book he mentions using "a combination of Leicas and Nikons" on earlier trips and a Nikonos on the Blue Nile. He also talks about film getting so brittle at low temperatures that it would snap on trying to rewind it.
 
nickthetasmaniac said:
Peter, I’ve read about that, it would be fascinating if the camera were found.

That said, I’m firmly of the view that ‘firsts’ don’t count if you don’t come back alive.
Click to expand...

Point made. Rather more of a "last" more than a "first". :(

Interesting though how the Brits (and that used to include us Aussies too) used to love a gallant, heroic failure - Scott of the Antarctic......Mallory of Everest.......Gordon of Khartoum............Charge of the Light Brigade..........thousands of ordinary Brits going calmly over the top into the teeth of German machine guns at the Somme.

All a part of the old public school, cold shower, pants down, six of the best ethos.

A la Roger of the Raj. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX-sUg_QQuE&list=RDJX-sUg_QQuE&index=1
 
Right -- at some point "stiff upper lip" becomes pure masochism. Scott didn't use dogs because that would have somehow been cheating. Amundsen realized that the Inuit used sled dogs all the time, so he learned from them. Scott didn't, and we know how all that turned out.

I joke that a similar theme is involved in the development of football (American and Aussie) -- the colonials figured out that we were given hands to carry things like balls, but I guess that was seen as unsporting by the English, so we have soccer (futbol).
 
KoNickon said:
Right -- at some point "stiff upper lip" becomes pure masochism. Scott didn't use dogs because that would have somehow been cheating. Amundsen realized that the Inuit used sled dogs all the time, so he learned from them. Scott didn't, and we know how all that turned out.

I joke that a similar theme is involved in the development of football (American and Aussie) -- the colonials figured out that we were given hands to carry things like balls, but I guess that was seen as unsporting by the English, so we have soccer (futbol).
Click to expand...

A slight correction - Scott used dogs on his first expedition having consulted the Norwegian arctic explorer Fridtjof Nansen, and ended up with ponies on the second (poor quality ones bought in a hurry by someone without a clue) when his powered sledges he intended to use for a long distance went through the ice or broke down. Nansen had warned him but the lure of new technology proved too great.
 
KoNickon said:
I joke that a similar theme is involved in the development of football (American and Aussie) -- the colonials figured out that we were given hands to carry things like balls, but I guess that was seen as unsporting by the English, so we have soccer (futbol).
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the game of American Handball. Wonder why they still insist on calling it Football?
 
Yes, the name stopped making sense decades ago. It's more like "Corporate-ball" -- so very highly regimented, with players having ever more specific specialties. And the rules get more and more Talmudic (did the guy catch the ball or not?). And of course, over a nominal 60 minute game, only about 8 minutes of actual play takes place.

On the other hand, the NFL does something that the EPL (and the other soccer leagues) need to do -- have a hard salary cap that prevents the stockpiling of talent by the rich clubs. The NFL is a lot of things, but it really forces parity among the teams.
 
KoNickon said:
Yes, the name stopped making sense decades ago. It's more like "Corporate-ball" -- so very highly regimented, with players having ever more specific specialties. And the rules get more and more Talmudic (did the guy catch the ball or not?). And of course, over a nominal 60 minute game, only about 8 minutes of actual play takes place.

On the other hand, the NFL does something that the EPL (and the other soccer leagues) need to do -- have a hard salary cap that prevents the stockpiling of talent by the rich clubs. The NFL is a lot of things, but it really forces parity among the teams.
Click to expand...


I did try to watch an American football game once. It had more stops than starts. After watching half an hour of fellows in helmets and big shoulder pads stand about most of the time with an occasional burst of incomprehensible activity I gave up and have never bothered since. I did ask my nephew about the rules as he studied in America for a year or two and played football at university.............as you say - Talmudic. Here in Australia, Australian rules football is very much a high activity sport from go to whoa - people constantly running, jumping in the air to catch balls, kicking balls, hand passing balls, and of course having fights and swearing at each other. And that's just the people watching. Honest to God I almost think that Aussie Rules football must have been invented by Irish navvies from Belfast or Scots from Glascow except it lacks breaks for beer and ciggies - well, not rule sanctioned ones anyway.

Sorry - this is rather off the topic, isn't it? (Though I suppose it's generally related - climbing Mt Everest v watching football codes you do not understand. Both could be called exotic forms of masochism.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom