Where did the word "beta" originate from? [back to top] [FAQ contents]

From: George Bell

Here is Steve Tyler's response, voted "most likely to be correct" or at least "most interesting":

I had heard, that the term "beta" was coined by Jack Mileski (SP?), a deceased Gunks Climber who was referring to a video tape of a route (Betamax) used to gain pre-climb information for an attempted climb of a route. This cite is unsubstantiated and any other theories are welcome.

From: John Baker

No, other theories are NOT welcome. Especially those trying to relate the term to software. Talk about revisionist history...

The Jack Mileski story is exactly right. I remember when the term came out in the early 80s. "Beta" comes from BetaMax, as in watching someone act out the moves as though you were seeing a video (although that format is now defunct).

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SOFTWARE RELEASES !

From: Steven Cherry

IN addition, this version has been canonized in the obituary done by either Climbing or R&I in their obituary of Mileski. (Nor was "beta" the only climbing lingo attributed to Jackhammer Jack.)

From: Dingus Milktoast

If climbers used the word "beta" they way most software houses do, we'd all be dead.

From: Reed Bartlett

For a completely different answer:

I remember in the mid-80's a few articles about Bachar. In one of them it explained that he had been persuaded by a group of Japanese climbers to climb Midnight Lightning with them video-taping it. Since they had a beta-max camera it was later referenced as "having the beta." I also remember the old R&I article that talked about Jack Mileski and Betamax. Great article and super funny too. Still, I'll stick to the story about Bachar being video taped.

From: deuce4

I believe the first published use of the term beta was in Bob Yoho's article on the crux of Astroman (Rock and Ice).

From: Thor Lancelot Simon

IIRC "beta" is the symbol generally used to represent information in some branches of mathematics.

From: Karl Lew

"you beta do it dis way" --climer

From: Mike Garrison

The Greeks used to have a system like we do for differentiating certain types of climbs. About 400 BC, they refered to Alpha climbs (climbs for which you didn't have any prior information), Beta climbs (you had some hints), and Gamma climbs (you used assistance from one of the local deities or a winged horse).

Alpha and Gamma sort of dropped out of the climbing lexicon by about 600 AD, but we still use "beta" to this day.

Where can I find climbing related graphics on the web? [back to top] [FAQ contents]

Note: please respect the copyright owner's wishes with regard to how the graphics can be used.

Candor Productions - backgrounds, buttons, images of gear, logos, rules

Guillaume Dargaud's home page - wallpaper

John's Wallpaper - wallpaper

Ron's climbing page-pictures - wallpaper

Tuan's Mountain Gallery - photos and a screen saver

SmithRock.com - screensaver

Webshots Rock Climbing - wallpaper and screen savers

Webshots Ice Climbing - wallpaper and screen savers

Personal interactive desktop: Rock Climbing - desktop

Always Collections - wallpaper

Wunderthemes - theme

Oreivatein - screensaver and themes

All GPS-related questions [back to top] [FAQ contents]

Rec.climbing isn't the ideal forum for GPS-related questions.

GPS Forums:

Newsgroup: sci.geo.satellite-nav

A low traffic GPS group is hosted on an amateur radio majordomo server at qth.net. To subscribe, send the following in the body (not the subject line) of an email message to Majordomo@qth.net

subscribe gps

There's a user-maintained firmware repository and email discussion group for the Garmin eTrex GPS receiver at Yahoo! Groups: etrex

GPS Links:

Best bet: GPSinformation.net

Tom's Garmin GPS Pages

Lake District Walks Web Site GPS Section (focuses on the Garmin 12XL)

Mountainnering Council of Scotland information paper - Modern Technology and Mountaineering

Global Positioning System Data & Information maintained by the United States Naval Observatory

The Geographer's Craft - The Global Positioning System

Previous GPS Threads from Rec.climbing:

GPS units specifically Garmin e-trex summit (why people like their eTrex better than some other GPS units) on Google

Mont Blanc GPS (an argument about whether or not you should use a GPS at all) on Google Groups

All photography/camera questions [back to top] [FAQ contents]

Which non-digital camera should I buy?

From: Ron Goodman

The two most popular P&S cameras on the photogroups are the Yashica T-4 and the Olympus Stylus Epic. Both have a fixed 35mm lens, the T-4 is around $150 and the Epic is about $90. I've had them both(dropped the T-4 off the top of Teewinot this fall) and they both do a nice job.

From: jnewcom

I second that. Check out any of the Olympus Stylus line. I just picked up a 80 mm zoom and it's quite nice. Light, small, clamshell design protects the lens and the optics take sharp pics. It has some automated ap settings for night shots and backlighting.

From: MWP

I agree also on the Olypus Stylus series. I have a Stylus zoom and it is light and easy to use but most of all TOUGH. It's been wet, it's been dirty, it's bounced off rocks..it takes it all.

From: Bob Slugg

I just got a little Olympus point and shoot, the really small one with a 35mm F2.8 lens. It only weighs 6 oz with film, and you can open, shoot a pic, and close it with one hand. It is seriously tiny, not much bigger than a pack of cigarettes. I plan to carry it with me in the sunglasses pocket on my shell, with a safety lanyard around my neck or clipped to the harness It is also somewhat weatherproofed with an O-ring around the back part which opens up to the film compartment. It was $100 from Camera World of Oregon. The pics I got back from Ranier were great. Finding that Mr Nikon weighed 2 lbs, and realizing that it always took two hands and lots of time to shoot a pic, finally forced me to consider one of these, and I wasn't disappointed at all. Even shooting 400 speed film on a glacier in direct sun w/o a polarizer or film speed compensation turned out some decent pics.

From: Charles Hayden

I just got my photos back from my latest outdoor trip. I also have an Olympus Stylus Infinity (not the zoom model). The Guy wo developed the pictures thought the sharpness was remarkable, and wanted to know what kind of camera I had used. He refused to believe it when I pulled the camera out of my pocket. You lose a lot of sharpness when you go with the zoom, in addition to picking up some weight, using up batteries faster, making it more expensive, and making it more prone to mechanical trouble. This is a GREAT camera, one which a lot of professionals carry in their pocket at all times.

From: Michael E. Gordon

If you are critical of photography and accustomed to the quality you get with an SLR, your feelings will be very mixed about the Olympus Stylus Epic.

I bought the camera for the exact same situations as you. However, I rarely climb in perfect, uniformly lit situations, and thus, have had very mixed feelings about the results with the Olympus. It has a real hard time with exposures in very contrasty situations (e.g., dark foreground, light background) unlike my Canon SLR. I shoot only Kodak Supra, Royal Gold, and recently a roll of Fuji Superia to see if the camera liked that film better.

Otherwise, the shots are pretty sharp, and if you climb in uniformly exposed environments you might like the results. The neatest feature is the flash modes; it's the only thing you have control over with this camera.

From: VCopelan

You might also check out some of the point and shoot Canon cameras. I'm using a Canon Sure Shot 80 tele/date. It's slightly larger than the Olympus Stylus but it's also way less expensive. I found my camera new on sale for $80 (IMHO the right price for a camera which may not survive a climbing trip). It has great infra red auto focusing 38mm/80mm lenses and a built in flash. The pictures are very, very sharp.

From: Geoff Jennings

I have a canon point&shoot that I've had great luck with. Pictures are great, and it's proven durable over 4-5 years of being dragged up climbs....

From: Malcolm Daly

Don't know anything about the Canon but I've been taking photos on climbs for 30 years and have some opinions. In order of importance:

1) Get a camera that has exposure override. Climbing scenes are a study in high contrasts and unless you can control the exposures you are doomed to black shadows and burned out skies.

2) Get a camera that you can operate with one hand. Think about keeping one hand on the rope to belay while you click photos with the other hand.

3) Don't worry too much about big zoom capability. In 30 years I have only a handful of good shots that were taken with a lens longer than 80mm.

4) Be sure you can use it with gloves on. Many new cameras have tiny, diddly buttons that almost require a pen point to operate.

5) Internal lens caps always break and cameras with internal lens caps don't ever have a way to place a standard cap over the lens barrel.

6) Durability is important but not critical. You can make a great protective case with foam and duct tape.

I have four current favorites.

The Nikon FM: This is the standard 35mm SLR with interchangeable lenses and one of the few cameras around that will still work when your batteries die. OK to climb with in parties of three.

Olympus XA: Find a used one and this will be a camera you'll carry on the climbs. It's tiny, bomber and takes great photos 'cause is god a good glass lens. You can fool the exposure meter with the film-speed selector. They've re-issued these as an expensive ($600) "nostalgia" item. Best to find a used one.

Contax TVS or TVS II: This is my dream camera. Zeiss lenses, 28-56 zoom and easy operation with flash-fill capabilities. They were smart enough to include a manual exposure override that is big enough to work with huge mittens on. The TVS II has, what appears to be, a bomber internal lens cap. Very cool camera but will set you back $800 to $1200 depending on how smart you are about buying it.

Finally, discontinued, the coolest of all, a Ricoh GR 1. It's tiny, has fill flash, exposure override and bomber construction. It's a fixed lens with no zoom capabilities. Good luck finding one.

From: Michael J. Sharp

As a photographer I have to say that with the technology and materials availible you are much better off with an SLR than with a Point and Shoot.

1. An SLR that will do what you want and not weigh a ton will cost a bit more, but also give you MUCH more flexibility. (Lens choice, the abbility to push/pull film, exposure control, ect)

2. While todays PAS camera are getting better their exposure meters are also eaily fooled--This is easy to over come with an SLR.

3. Optics for SLR camera are usually much better. Yes there are a few exceptions, but not many.

4. An SLR offers the ability work as a point and shoot.

From: carbon_dragon

It's hard to find cheap, durable, and light all in the same camera. Any of the smallish 70's/80's small SLRs would probably work ok (Olympus OM-1 or later, Minolta XD-11, Nikon FM2, etc.). The XD11 would probably be pretty cheap, and lenses are plentiful and inexpensive too.

From: Kai Larson

I use a Canon F1 for my SLR and either a Nikon 28ti or Ricoh GR1 as my pocket cameras.

some of my thoughts on these cameras can be found on my web page:

Camera equipment for backpacking and climbing.

If I were to go out and buy a new SLR system today, I would get an Olympus OM3 or OM4.

From: MKloepster

I've had good luck with the little fuji disposables for use as trail cameras. They're light, cheap, have flashes, and some are even made to tolerate rain. The biggest plus for me is the fact that, if you do something incredibly stupid, you're only out about $8.00.

See also:

Shoot to Kill on Rocklist
Camera for Caving on Google Groups

Should I get a digital camera instead?

From: VCopelan

The first question you have to ask yourself is what are you going to do with the pictures? If you plan on showing them on a computer monitor CRT or a XGA laptop you need at least 1.3 megapixel resolution for photographic quality. If you plan on printing pictures on a ink jet you would be better off with a camera with at least 2 megapixels of resolution. The higher the resolution the better. The Nikon CoolPix 800 is very light weight and has 2.11 megapixel resolution. I have seen it advertised for $490. The Nikon CoolPix 950 is another very nice light camera with 2.11 megapixels. That camera has a three times zoom lens. They are selling for $700 and Nikon has a $100 mail-in rebate. The Nikon cameras are nice in that they give you jpeg and tiff images. Nikon just introduced the 990 Coolpix which is 3.34 megapixels but I don't know the price and Canon has a new camera with 3.0 megapixels for $800. I believe Olympus has a 1.3 megapixel camera for around $300. Check out Camera World of Oregon for prices.

From: steve

Digital cameras are horrendously expensive... or at least they used to be. Now they're just expensive

From: Adrian Japp

You still cannot match the quality and resolution of a slide with any digital camera on the market at the moment.

From: Francis Dierick

We recently purchased an Olympus 2020 camera. Can compete with many traditional point-and-shoot cameras; prints up to A4 possible in highest quality; completely automated or manual settings... more blah blah @ olympus.

For me, the single most important feature is that you can retry pix with different settings, lighting, iso speed, etc... without having to waste film; you just take a bunch of pix and choose the best ones.

From: Aya Kristen Alt

I have an Olympus c-2020 zoom, which is awsome in terms of being able to adjust all the settings, black & white, sepia, takes movies, zoom, all that stuff, but the only problem is that I can really only use it to take bouldering pics (which come out great, I'll have to post the pics I took a couple of weeks ago of bouldering on cat rock in central park - lovely with all the forsythia blooming and all)- I hesitate to take it up the rock with me because it just cost so damn much (in the $1000 range when I got it back in November. I think it's significantly less now) - it also isn't particularly weatherproof.

From: Travis Brooks

My wife and I take our Olympus C-3000 climbing all the time and it satisfies most of your reqs. It was around $600, so it is a bit pricey, but other than that I couldn't ask for anything nicer. It has manual settings for exposure, "ASA", and F-stop. If you want to do without those things and just trust the camera brains, you can. If you never want to use that stuff, buy a cheaper model. Remember too, that you'll save a lot on developing costs, so spending a bit more up front isn't too unreasonable.

Memory:
A nice thing about digitals is that you can delete pics as you go, so take 5 shots, and pick the best right there, then you'll rarely run out of memory. OTOH, a decent size card of 32 MB or more, on a medium resolution (which is, to my eye, imperceptibly different from a film pic at 3x5) will get you around 100 pics, so memory isn't much of a problem. If it is, carry a second card, they're tiny.

Batteries:
I have two sets of NiMH rechargeables and switch them out, saving a bunch of money on batteries in the long run. One set should last you around 100-200 pics, something like that, although we are pretty careful not to use the LCD very much as it drains the batteries a lot.

Resolution:
3.1 megapixel is great, and at the higher res settings, which eat a fair bit of memory, 5x7 blowups look close to film pictures. You'll always be able to trade res for space (duh), and on most cameras should be able to choose for each pic (not one-handed!). You should think, though, about how you are going to print them, if you don't have a good printer set up, it will cost you as much as a film roll to get good prints (although your only paying that for the good ones). For us, most of our pics never leave digital format, so costs are low. When we have a slideshow, we gather round the monitor, which is pretty low res anyway.

My final (and probably only useful) advice, biased by my pleasure with my Olympus, is to buy one from a _camera_ company that figured out how to make digital stuff, rather than from a _digital electronics_ company that is trying to make cameras. The camera part is probably more important, and easier to screw up.

From: Hal Murray

After lots of procrastinating and research, I recently purchased a digital camera. Here is a dump of what I learned.

I was looking for something light to take climbing/hiking. I got a Sony DSC-P1. You might want to keep that in mind so you can correct for my biases.

Figure out why you want a (digital) camera. Do you want small prints to show your friends? JPEGs for your web site? Slides for your speaking tour? A toy to show to your friends? Fine photography?

Roughly speaking, digital cameras come in 3 sizes: 1, 2, and 3 megapixels. Generally, more pixels cost more and give better results.

Most pictures on the web are (well) under 1 megapixel. My screen is 1280x1024. That's 1.3 megapixels Most people agree that 3 megapixels is good enough for an 8x10 print. More pixels let you crop and still maintain quality.

I suggest scanning the reviews to get a general idea. Then check to see if any of your friends have one. See what they think and play with it for a while. (Digital "film" is free so it doesn't cost anything to play.) Scanning the user manual will probably help. Eventually, you will have to make a decision and pay your money. I got mine because my boss had one and I liked it. It's small/light, "cute" is the right word. I can't make it work right for close ups (flowers) but it's been pretty good for point-n-shoot mountain/climbing shots.

I have a Sony DSC-P1. Camera and case and spare battery and 2x 64MB are roughly a pound. The total package was $1K. I don't have a good over-the-shoulder type setup yet. The lense cover flappers are too delicate to just toss into a pack without a case.

The second choice on my short list was the Olympus models, for example the 490Z. But they don't make anything in that style with 3 megapixels. Karl said he used the 460Z, it's 1.3 megapixel brother.

Be sure to include film and batteries in your budget:

Digital cameras eat batteries. You probably want NIMH rechargeable AAs. (See below for a good URL.) Some cameras use proprietary batteries. Sony batteries get good reviews, but pricy.

There are roughly 3 types of "film": CompactFlash, SmartMedia, and Sony's Memory Stick. IBM also offers microdrives that fit some ComapctFlash sockets. Prices have recently dropped. Sony's stuff costs more. Most cameras come with a tiny/toy roll of film. Plan to get more.

Double check this area if you are going on a road trip. You will probably want something like a laptop to offload your "film" so you can reuse it and some sort of cigarette-lighter charger setup. A 2048x1536 (3 megapixel) picture is roughly 1.5 megabytes when compressed. So you can figure out how many pictures you will get on a roll of film. Fewer pixels or more aggressive compression will take less space at reduced quality.

Speaking of budget...

If you get a digital camera, you probably need a computer to process your pictures and maybe a printer to make prints. If you already have a computer, you might have to upgrade: memory, CD writer, printer...

Don't forget software costs too. Cameras often come with free basic software on the CD that contains the drivers. You might want PhotoShop or something fancy like that.

It's typical for digital cameras to advertise a 6:1 zoom which is really a 3:1 optical and a 2:1 digital. The optical part is typically a 35-105 equivalent for 35 mm cameras. The digital part is not a real zoom. You can get the same results by cropping when post processing. (I run my camera with the digital zoom disabled.)

LCD displays are close to useless in bright sun. Turning it off saves batteries. I mostly use the optical view finder. The LCD is handy to review your pictures in the field. You can try again if you don't like it and/or delete the less good ones to make room for more.

Assuming you have a computer, how are you going to get the bits from your camera into your computer? Older cameras support a serial port. That will be slow. Newer ones have USB connections. With CompactFlash and/or SmartMedia, you can probably get an adapter that will talk to your "film" canister directly.

I've been happy with my USB connection. It takes several seconds per typical 1.5 MB picture. That's a couple of minutes for 40 pictures on a full 64MB exposure "roll".

If you want to put your pictures on the web you need a web site. That's too big a topic to cover here. There are several "free" sites that will store your pictures in trade for ads and/or they make their profit when your friends/relatives order prints from them. (One had a "We get all rights" clause/scam.)

Modern inkjet printers are amazing. The Epson Photo 870 has a generally good reputation but also various claims/flames about the prints turning orange because of exposure to air polution. The cost of ink and paper is significant. Generally, you get better results with fancy/expensive Photo grade paper.

Digital camera models get updated every year or so. You can often get good deals if you like one that is getting phased out.

Beware of prices that are too-good-to-be-true, especially when advertised on the web. A common scam is to require your phone number so they can "confirm" your order. What they really want to do is pressure you into buying overpriced accessories. If you don't fall for their pitch, then your order seems to get back ordered forever.

More info:

If you like usenet, check out rec.photo.digital. Very high volume! Anybody from rec.climbing will feel right at home - much bickering and crap, many newbies, and a few gems that (almost?) make it worthwhile.

Good URLs:

Steve's Digicams (Reviews)
Digital Photography Review
Imaging Resource
Image Detail
The Luminous Landscape
Silverace
Norman Koren Photography
Jay Arraich Photography
The Digital Dog
Cliffshade
Batteries for AA-compatible Digital Cameras
Philip Greenspun Warning - time sink. Great stuff. Much is non-digital.
B & H NYC camera store with generally good reputation. Not the cheapest but not rip-off.

Techno babble:

A pixel on a camera is different from a pixel on a screen or a printer. Cameras typically have colored filters in front of each pixel. The pattern of green, red, green, blue is common. That's a 3:1 ratio between camera pixels and real pixels.

The size of the sensor on a digital camera is quite a bit smaller than the size of 35mm film. This means that the focal length of the lens doesn't directly translate. Typically specs will give the actual focal length and then the 35mm equivalent. The smaller size of the sensor has a couple of interesting properties.

It's hard to get a wide angle lens.
It's easy to get a telephoto lens.
The diffraction limit is more interesting. (Normal 35mm film is 36x24mm. Adjust for the focal-length actual-to-equivalent ratio and you can figure out the size of a pixel.)

The digital equivalent of grain is noise. How many photons hit each pixel and what is the difference between N and N+1?

Digital cameras are small and light. That is good when they are in your pack but it also means they are less stable when you are trying to hold them by hand.

Most digital cameras take several seconds to boot up when you turn them on. There is often an annoying delay between when you push the button and when they actually get around to recording the picture, then another annoying delay before you can take another picture.

From: GeoffCJ

I'm no expert, but my digital has been gathering dust. I can get better pictures from my $100 dollar point and shoot and my $99 dollar scanner than I can from my $400+ Digital.

Problems with digitals.

1) you go through batteries like crazy

2) you can't just load a new roll of film. Can't buy new memory cards in yosemite

3) I find, mine at least, is really shitty at handling anything other than perfect light.

Advantages

No film or developing. I think for what you'd spend on a digital, you could pay for a WHOLE bunch of Kodak CDs.

See also:

DC Views

How can I take better photographs?

From: Michael E. Gordon

Overexpose pure snow scenes by 1 to 2 stops or the snow looks dull and gray.

From: Dr Propane

I always use a polarizer when adequate light is available. It is doubly important to use one with slide film, so you can compress the light intensity range of the scene into the light intensity range that the film can reproduce. As for metering, if you have a subject against snow, just take a close up reading of your open palm, and use that to set the exposure.

From: Roy

You say you are going to take UV filters for your lens. Don't bother. At high altitudes the color temperature is shifted quite significantly. You will need a warming filter to balance the blue. Your eyes won't see it, but your film will. You should have at least an 81B. I live at about 5000 feet and do much photography at 10-11000 feet. Even at these altitudes I have a warming filter on all the time.

From: Sparks

--> always buy pro film eg: fuji velvia, kodak E100sw

--> aways buy the best and fastest *nikon* lens you can afford

--> always take lots of extra film and batteries (kodak lithium AA's are long lasting, light, and expensive but worth it).

--> get a good quality "point and shoot" that you always keep within reach on your belt or have your S.O. carry it (Yashica T4)--you're more likely to pull it out than the Nikon and it takes publishable quality photos.

From: Stephen Whittaker

May I suggest that you obtain the following two books? Mountain Light and Galen Rowell's Vision both by Galen Rowell. You should find all the info you want in them.

See also:

How to take good mountain photos from Anthony Dyer's Mountain Pages

Cameras and Cold Weather

From: Keyton

I usually wrap the camera in a (dry, of course) washcloth and then put the whole thing in a ziplock freezer bag before it goes into my pack. For extended trips, extended picture taking and/or cold conditions I usually take an extra set of batteries.

From: JL Venable

Just my .02, but go with Lithium Batteries for better cold weather performance.

From: Travis Brooks

Probably best to keep it in your bag at night. The problem is the batteries, I had a set of lithiums die in not very cold temperatures (20 degrees maybe), while my NiMH rechargables worked fine, just one story though, YMMV.

From: Adrian Japp

The beauty of digital cameras is that they are mostly (apart from zoom motors etc) solid state, so are generally resistant to most temperatures. The main considerations are condensation inside the camera (fouling optics) and battery life. I use a Kodak DC290 (although not in extreme conditions like you) below freezing and haven't had any problems yet. With devices such as this, it is more important to avoid extreme changes in temperature, which would cause rapid condensation etc. Keeping your camera dry and isolated while carrying will help immensely.

From: Jason Huckaby

I've used my digital camera in cold conditions this was my experience:

-even though I got the best rechargeables (www.cheapbatteries.com) it still does not perform well in the cold. Cold weather=0 battery life.

-I keep it in the chest pocket of my bibs to keep it warm (which works) but it gets condensation this way. The lens usually stays clean. My Ricoh has a motorized lens (and LCD screen cover) cover which helps.

I can't really recommend a digital camera for cold weather. More than once, a moment that I *really* wanted to capture on "film" was denied because of dead battery / too cold problems. It's a bummer.

I got a Ricoh 5300 (2.3Mp). I've been real happy with it, but it's a year old now. An "antique" in the computer day/age.

See also:

Cold Weather Photography - How Should I Handle My Camera in Cold Weather? on MountainNomad

Where can I learn more about the history of climbing? [back to top] [FAQ contents]

Recommended Books

Defying Gravity : High Adventure on Yosemite's Walls by Gary Arce and Royal Robbins
Camp 4: Recollections of a Yosemite Rockclimber by Steve Roper
Royal Robbins : Spirit of the Age by Pat Ament
Climbing in North America by Chris Jones
The Vertical World of Yosemite by Galen A. Rowell (Editor)
The Armchair Mountaineer by David Reuther (Editor) and John Thorn (Editor)
Scrambles Amongst the Alps: In the Years 1860-69 by Edward Whymper
Mountaineering Women : Stories by Early Climbers by David Mazel
History of the Sierra Nevada by Francis P. Farquhar
Hold the Heights: The Foundations of Mountaineering by Walt Unsworth
A History of Mountain Climbing by Roger Frison-Roche, Sylvain Jouty, and Deke Dusinberre
Stone Crusade : A Historical Guide to Bouldering in America by John Sherman
Beyond the Vertical by Layton Kor (out of print, but available used from Amazon)
Downward Bound by Warren Harding (out of print, but available from Chessler Books last I looked

See also: I just read Into Thin Air. What should I read next? on Tradgirl

Climbing History Web Sites

Clint Cummin's Yosemite Climbing History
Women Climbing: History
A Sierra Club Outing In 1934
Squamish Then and Now

Influential Climbers

Bonington, Chris
Cummins, Clint
Dawes, Johnny
Destivelle, Catherine
Epperson, Greg
Florine, Hans
Horst, Lisa Ann
Huber Brothers
Humar, Tomaz
Jardine, Ray
MacDonald, Warren
McNamara, Chris
Robbins, Royal
Rowell, Galen
Soles, Clyde
Takeda, Pete
Viesturs, Ed
Weihenmayer, Erik
Whittaker, Jim

Rec.climbing Threads on Google Groups

Goldline?
Most revolutionary gear
ratings history question
Round nuts?
Q: Name these Nuts
The History and Development of Climbing Gear
Big Rock - a little history
The History of the CrackJack
Climbing History--Essays Translated by Inez
Question for All You Old-Timers
Who is your climbing hero and why...
John Gill bouldering problems
Significant climbers
Who owns what?
Climbers who've had knots named after them

Where can I find non-leather rock climbing shoes? [back to top] [FAQ contents]

From: Five-Ten's Website

The Anasazi Velcro, Lace-up, Zlipper and Newton, and the Rock Socks are all made from synthetic leather.

Editor's Note: this refers to the men's Zlipper, not the women's. Also, the Newton appears to have leather strips as an accent even though the upper is primarily synthetic.

From: Boreal's Website

The Matrix sets the standard for the best synthetic climbing slipper on the market.

From: Jeff Elison

5.10 makes the Anasazi in Lace-Ups and Velcro; both synthetic. They also make the synthetic VX. The Anasazi Lace-Up is my hands down favorite for face climbing. I'm on my 2nd or third pair and love them. Great on edges and front-point moves.

From: John Davis

Asolo still has the La Rage K, and also has a slipper and high-topped boot with a weird nylon mesh type upper. Worth a look I guess.

From: Chad Lake

I had a pair of non-leather climbing shoes made for me a couple of years ago. The place that made them for me is called MEKAN, and if I remember correctly they are located in Utah somewhere. Pretty good shoes, and I am sure that they would be able to tailor the shoes to fit your needs. It is a bit more expensive that stock shoes (about $40 or so more), but they are good shoes.

See also:

Non-Leather Climbing Shoes from Chris Leger

Miscellaneous: Page 1 2

Most of the information in this FAQ was originally posted on rec.climbing. If you would prefer to have something attributed to you removed from this FAQ, please contact us.

Proceeds from Tradgirl.com benefit The American Safe Climbing Association