Reviewers wanted

[Guest Peter Sharpe]

Once again, it is coming up to the time of year when Caravan, Motorhome & Camping Mart will require reviewers to cover certain areas of the country. I'm afraid we can't send you off to exotic locations, but the occasional jobs will involve the comparitively unglamorous task of visiting caravan and motorhome dealerships, hopefully as close to your homes as we can arrange.

We particularly require people who live in the North-East of England, the Midlands and the South-West. We also need cover in most other areas though, so don't be shy.

Previous experience is not necessarily required, although you should be a competent photographer and have a camera that is capable of producing good interior shots in the confined spaces of caravans and motorhomes. A digital SLR is preferable, although not absolutely essential if your camera has a lens with 18mm capability or lower.

We can provide you with a guide to help you to organise your writing.

 

If you think you think you fit the bill, please send an email to me at peters@warnergroup.co.uk

[Mel B]

Note that Peter's email address given above is wrong, it should be:

 

PeterS@warnersgroup.co.uk

 

He'd missed the 's' out after 'warner'.

 

Mel B

[Guest Peter Sharpe]

I can't believe I did that :-) People are always making that same mistake when emailing Warners. I was obviously in a hurry to go home when I posted it.

[BGD]

Don't forget, Oh Great One, that two of your faithfull minions reside here on the Costa Blanca.........and the Sparkle is a dab hand at semi-pro photography with about a zillion squids worth of camera equipment now!

 

Whenever someone has to do the unrewarding task of trying out some posh, flash, soooper-dooooper new Motorhome on tour in this neck of the woods, Bruce and Kathy would be selflessly prepared to undertake this terrible duty - solely to spare others in the MMM Home for the Dazed and Confused from such drudgery.

 

 

 

Imagine if you will, the refreshingly incisive wit and creative commentary provided by BGD; coupled with the awsome and inventive photography of the Sparkle........a surefire way to double the circulation of the magazine at one fell swoop!!

 

 

 

 

:-D :-D :-D

 

 

[Guest Peter Sharpe]

Thank you BGD, for bringing it to my atteantion that my appeal might have inadvertently attracted those who envisaged a champagne lifestyle of shiny, new, top-of-the-range motorhomes, lavish, expense-account-driven dining in exotic restaurants and the attractions of swooning, scantily clad courtesans who have to be virtually beaten away with a stick. I'm afraid all that is reserved for those who work on Which Motorcaravan.

 

We have the equally important but relatively thankless task of visiting dealerships around the country (although as local to you as possible), discussing the relative merits of their used caravans and motorhomes, thereby providing an invaluable service to those who just can't make their minds up.

You will have to keep a reasonably open mind, i.e. no deeply ingrained prejudices against certain base vehicles that might slant your review with an unnacceptable bias - even if you can't reverse up steep hills in them.

You will need to have an eye for all the little things within your subject that might prove to be either of great benefit of potentially annoying. Although it would be quite good fun to do so, we do not set off to pull any particular models to shreds - we simply avoid featuring any that are truly dreadful.

Although you will need to mention some of the equipment provided, we need more than what is virtually an inventory of the contents. Most of the time, the greatest difficulty is restricting yourself to the required word count for each vehicle, although you might get the opportunity to indulge yourselves on occasion.

You will need to have an eye for a good angle for photographs and you will require a suitable camera. A digital SLR is preferred but not absolutely essential. A wide angle lens is obviously of great benefit for interior shots. The Nikon D40 can go down to 18mm, which should be adequate. Remember that your 28mm lens on a digital camera is only the equivalent of the old 35mm lenses. You can just about get away with these, but you have to become adept at the art of squashing your body against the walls to get the widest possible field of view.

The vast majority of the visits are pre-arranged, but you will be left to arrange a suitable time with the dealer concerned. Most of the time they will simply let you get on with it, but some will like to tell you all about the business and suggest which vehicles to review - play it by ear.

 

I hope that makes it a bit clearer - even if it does dash your dreams to some extent B-)

[Guest JudgeMental]

 

May I inquire, would there be sufficient storage for my man servant, wig boxes and claret?

[Thai Bry]

JudgeMental - 2008-06-13 12:21 PM May I inquire, would there be sufficient storage for my man servant, wig boxes and claret?

Judge

I'm off to do my 1st review on sunday 15th - up in Cleveland.

Let you know how I get on

Thai

[Guest Peter Sharpe]

JudgeMental - 2008-06-13 12:21 PM

 

 

May I inquire, would there be sufficient storage for my man servant, wig boxes and claret?

 

Motorhomes with rear garages were originally created for the transportation of servants, but are now used mainly for the cross-Channel transportation of vast quantities of claret. The wig boxes should cause few problems, as they will add little to your payload. Be careful with the pomade though, as it can cause havoc with your pollen filters.

[Guest JudgeMental]

Peter Sharpe - 2008-06-16 5:47 PM

 

JudgeMental - 2008-06-13 12:21 PM

 

 

May I inquire, would there be sufficient storage for my man servant, wig boxes and claret?

 

Motorhomes with rear garages were originally created for the transportation of servants, but are now used mainly for the cross-Channel transportation of vast quantities of claret. The wig boxes should cause few problems, as they will add little to your payload. Be careful with the pomade though, as it can cause havoc with your pollen filters.

 

Pomade....POMADE! I do believe sir that you are are inferring moi of being a frequenter of Molly houses or a homosexulist as you modernist's call them. A hanging offense where I comes from!

 

 

[Guest Peter Sharpe]

Steady there... keep your wig on :-D

[Geof Angi]

Peter

 

Happy to maybe give it a try, not sure what sort of mess I will make of it, but we are looking at the moment any way to up grade ethel, on spec if not on age. Between us we may have a camara that takes a decent pic or two

 

Geof

[Geof Angi]

Sorry Peter

 

Hertfordshire/East Anglia

[Guest Tracker]

As a resident of Pembrokeshire I can advise that Motorhome dealers are thin on the ground down here - in fact just the two that I can think of - although there are several more in Carmarthenshire and Swansea which are within a day's drive as long as one does not try and reverse all the way.

 

Mind you we do get a lot of rain down here so any engines not fitted with snorkels just will not make it out of the county.

 

There may be some doubt as to whether I am cynical enough for the job though because after a lifetime (so far) of being close (too close at times) to the darned things I do not suffer inadequate design and bad workmanship gladly - and there is far too much of both in many Motorhomes.

[cheetahdavie]

On the 23rd I take charge of my first ever [ignoring the old Transit Van i toured Europe in..in the 80s] Motor caravan...I have bought a Carioca 656 55 reg [only Editors and above,,ie God..can buy new?] with 4000 miles on the clock.[Why have most of the CI models only a few miles on the clock?]

Never the less despite its Height,and lack of ooomph..2.3JTD? I intend to stop visiting my 2nd Home..Queensland..god its beautiful there.. beaches to die for![i could move there tomorrow]..and travel the UK.with luck avoiding anything south of Watford..?I am sure Cornwall falls into that catagory?I am willing to offer my..and her indoors..opinion on what we encounterThe opinions will be from her indoors..My opinions will be err.. monitored.

I envisaged a "salary " of ..say £1500 per week" but then..The 15% red kicked in.. and I thought..we will discuss this ..err..i still cant find the way to make this bed in to a double..???

[Guest Peter Sharpe]

Thank you for all the replies everyone - which still keep rolling in.

Unfortunately, I will have to specify that a digital SLR camera is a requirement, as most non-SLRs boast ever increasing zoom facilities, which are the opposite of what is required for this type of work.

I use a Nikon D40, which is absolutely fine. It has a standard 16-65mm lens, which can make a pretty decent stab at it, although for washroom photos, something even wider is preferable. An SLR can nearly always manage to get usable photos in lower light conditions than non-SLRs which is also useful, as it is usually better to avoid using flash unless it is impossible without.

The photography is probably more important than the writing to be honest, as I can also knock the copy into shape if required, but without high quality photos we are stuck.

I am having to repeat this on both the caravan and motorhome forums, so sorry if you've read it twice.

 

Peter

 

[Guest Peter Sharpe]

Thanks to all the people who have continued to get in touch. I think some people have been disappointed by the insistance on an SLR, but this is mainly because they tend to have wider standard lenses and are usually more capable of taking decent photos at lower light levels.

Try taking a photo of your motorhome's washroom or kitchen unit if you want to see what I mean (especially if it has a central kitchen). The space issue isn't usually quite so critical in caravans, but the average compact camera lens is very restrictive. Remember that a 28mm lens on a digital camera is only the equivalent of the old, non-digital 35mm lenses, which were of little use for interiors.

The Kodak P880 has a 24mm lens that can cope better than most, but they are scarce now and you can buy a Nikon D40 with a 16mm lens these days for very little more.

If you think you have a compact that bucks the trend then please let me know.

[Brian Kirby]

Peter

I realise you need digital images, but slides, and even good prints, can be scanned to very good effect.  If the original exposure is good, and the scan high res, what would be wrong with a scanned image?

May I also suggest you could give a bit of guidance on the file size and format you need.  I believe commercial printing seldom exceeds 300dpi, so even to print a decent 10 X 8 shouldn't require more than 7.5 megapixels (if me arithmetic is right!), and I can't imagine you'll be doing many 10 x 8 washroom pictures!  However, many cameras allow the JPEG compression to be tweaked, or do you want exclusively RAW format files?

I'm not seeking to turn this into a Stothert technical forum, but a bit more info might produce a few more contributors, especially if scans can be accepted.  Digital SLRs are fairly expensive, and I bet there are more contributors with film SLRs than the digital flavour.

[camper69]

Brian,

 

I think you are wrong about the number of contributors with film SLRS. Most use digital SLR's these days. High quality scans from slides need to be done with a dedicated slide scanner, not a flatbed, to achieve acceptable quality. These scanners cost around £400. A digital SLR can be bought for £299.

As a past contributor to Peter's magazine I can tell you that digital is a major advantage. The reason is simply that after reviewing 'vans at a dealership and taking the photos you can immediately download them to a laptop to check quality etc before even leaving the dealers. The screen on the camera isn't really big enough for this. Any problems and they can be sorted immediately. With film you have to wait for it to be processed to see if there are any problems which means a costly return trip to the dealership, who probabaly won't be too pleased.

I find this facility even more of an advantage for travel features when working hundreds of miles from home.

 

[Brian Kirby]

camper69 - 2008-11-29 10:44 PM Brian, I think you are wrong about the number of contributors with film SLRS. Most use digital SLR's these days. High quality scans from slides need to be done with a dedicated slide scanner, not a flatbed, to achieve acceptable quality. These scanners cost around £400. A digital SLR can be bought for £299. As a past contributor to Peter's magazine I can tell you that digital is a major advantage. The reason is simply that after reviewing 'vans at a dealership and taking the photos you can immediately download them to a laptop to check quality etc before even leaving the dealers. The screen on the camera isn't really big enough for this. Any problems and they can be sorted immediately. With film you have to wait for it to be processed to see if there are any problems which means a costly return trip to the dealership, who probabaly won't be too pleased. I find this facility even more of an advantage for travel features when working hundreds of miles from home.

Yes, but, these digital advantages are not available to those who already have good quality film cameras, that they don't want to replace with a digital of inferior quality.  One of my lenses cost more than the cheap digital SLR you quote.  It is a wide angle zoom, that wouldn't work effectively on a digital, because its focal length would be doubled.  The options are buy a full frame digital - have you seen the prices of these - or replace the present camera and lens with new digital of equivalent quality, say £1,000.

Scan quality?  I have a flat bed with a built in, back lit, dedicated slide/film scanner, that can resolve actual film grain on B/W 400 ASA negatives.  Its max resolution is 1,200 dpi.  This produces a 25Mb file from a standard 35mm slide.  How much higher than that does one need to go?  Cost?  About £250.

I agree about the need to turn around film, but MMM's copy deadlines are not exactly measured in nanoseconds, and the review pics are not generally printed full page!  :-)  What I was looking for was a hint of flexibility that might give a few more folk the incentive to try.

[camper69]

Brian Kirby - 2008-11-30 1:33 PM

camper69 - 2008-11-29 10:44 PM Brian, I think you are wrong about the number of contributors with film SLRS. Most use digital SLR's these days. High quality scans from slides need to be done with a dedicated slide scanner, not a flatbed, to achieve acceptable quality. These scanners cost around £400. A digital SLR can be bought for £299. As a past contributor to Peter's magazine I can tell you that digital is a major advantage. The reason is simply that after reviewing 'vans at a dealership and taking the photos you can immediately download them to a laptop to check quality etc before even leaving the dealers. The screen on the camera isn't really big enough for this. Any problems and they can be sorted immediately. With film you have to wait for it to be processed to see if there are any problems which means a costly return trip to the dealership, who probabaly won't be too pleased. I find this facility even more of an advantage for travel features when working hundreds of miles from home.

Yes, but, these digital advantages are not available to those who already have good quality film cameras, that they don't want to replace with a digital of inferior quality.  One of my lenses cost more than the cheap digital SLR you quote.  It is a wide angle zoom, that wouldn't work effectively on a digital, because its focal length would be doubled.  The options are buy a full frame digital - have you seen the prices of these - or replace the present camera and lens with new digital of equivalent quality, say £1,000.

Scan quality?  I have a flat bed with a built in, back lit, dedicated slide/film scanner, that can resolve actual film grain on B/W 400 ASA negatives.  Its max resolution is 1,200 dpi.  This produces a 25Mb file from a standard 35mm slide.  How much higher than that does one need to go?  Cost?  About £250.

I agree about the need to turn around film, but MMM's copy deadlines are not exactly measured in nanoseconds, and the review pics are not generally printed full page!  :-)  What I was looking for was a hint of flexibility that might give a few more folk the incentive to try.

We aren't talking about MMM but the 'Mart' mag where deadlines can be as short as two weeks, even one week now and again. Please don't think you need top range equipment to take quality photographs. I use an Olympus E500 which cost about £500 for a twin lens outfit about 3 years ago. You don't need a full frame DSLR.

[camper69]

Brian Kirby - 2008-11-30 1:33 PM

camper69 - 2008-11-29 10:44 PM Brian, I think you are wrong about the number of contributors with film SLRS. Most use digital SLR's these days. High quality scans from slides need to be done with a dedicated slide scanner, not a flatbed, to achieve acceptable quality. These scanners cost around £400. A digital SLR can be bought for £299. As a past contributor to Peter's magazine I can tell you that digital is a major advantage. The reason is simply that after reviewing 'vans at a dealership and taking the photos you can immediately download them to a laptop to check quality etc before even leaving the dealers. The screen on the camera isn't really big enough for this. Any problems and they can be sorted immediately. With film you have to wait for it to be processed to see if there are any problems which means a costly return trip to the dealership, who probabaly won't be too pleased. I find this facility even more of an advantage for travel features when working hundreds of miles from home.

Yes, but, these digital advantages are not available to those who already have good quality film cameras, that they don't want to replace with a digital of inferior quality.  One of my lenses cost more than the cheap digital SLR you quote.  It is a wide angle zoom, that wouldn't work effectively on a digital, because its focal length would be doubled.  The options are buy a full frame digital - have you seen the prices of these - or replace the present camera and lens with new digital of equivalent quality, say £1,000.

Scan quality?  I have a flat bed with a built in, back lit, dedicated slide/film scanner, that can resolve actual film grain on B/W 400 ASA negatives.  Its max resolution is 1,200 dpi.  This produces a 25Mb file from a standard 35mm slide.  How much higher than that does one need to go?  Cost?  About £250.

I agree about the need to turn around film, but MMM's copy deadlines are not exactly measured in nanoseconds, and the review pics are not generally printed full page!  :-)  What I was looking for was a hint of flexibility that might give a few more folk the incentive to try.

/QUOTE]Sorry sent message before I'd finished. Fairly new on here.We aren't talking about MMM but the 'Mart' mag where deadlines can be as short as two weeks, even one week now and again. Please don't think you need top range equipment to take quality photographs. It's how it's used that matters. I use an Olympus E500 which cost about £500 for a twin lens outfit about 3 years ago. The lens goes to 28mm (35mm eqv) which is wide enough, any wider and distortion sets in. You don't need a full frame DSLR. For MMM and Mart images are taken as highest quality JPEGS then converted to TIFFS. These are usually around 25MB to 30MB and have been used full page and almost double page spread in MMM and other mags. PS. I've nothing against film but the Bronica and Canon outfits sitting my wardrobe don't earn for me anymore.

[fred grant]

fred uses an old eggsacta me ansums, bolted to the tractor to keep the old girl steady. will that be good enuff for all u camera buffs my luvvers?

 

fstopfred

[Guest Peter Sharpe]

Hello Brian,

 

I'm afraid that for most topical magazine work, the days on non-digital SLR cameras are well and truly over. It is now possible for someone to take the photographs anywhere in the country and get them to me within minutes if necessary. I sometimes wonder how we ever managed without them. A Nikon D40 can be bought for around £200 now, which is quite a ridiculously low price.

There are one or two digital non-SLRs that will do the job quite adequately, but I thought that anyone owning a more "serious" camera would be more likely to be someone who takes pride in the photography and has an ability to work out the best way to frame and compose the picture. There are bound to be exceptions of course, but it takes quite a while to explain to give people a reasonably detailedexplanation of what is required, so it helps to narrow things down a bit.

It's about time you took the plunge Brian. Somebody in the office has bought a Nikon D3, which he claims can take crisp shots in near darkness.

[Brian Kirby]

Hello Peter, and thanks.  Yes, I am slowly and reluctantly coming round to the view I shall, eventually, have to go digital.  The problem is where to start.  I am not a "photographer", but I take photographs, and all I know about cameras, lenses and film I have accumulated over the past 40 or so years.  Trouble is, none of that accumulated knowledge is any use for digital!  Lens focal lengths change with digital.  Film is non existent, and the electronics interpret what the sensors serve up, so that one man's pixels do not equate to the next man's pixels, and more are not necessarily better, and grain becomes noise, but also varies between makes of cameras offering the same spec, and the whole lot changes every three nanoseconds.  Arrrrgh!  All I need is 40 years of accumulated knowledge of digital, but relevant for today's cameras!

BTW, that Nikon D3 is a bout £2,500, body only.  Bloody should take pics in the dark for that price!  In fact, at that price, it should find it's own pictures and then return home afterwards, day or night!

[colin]

I'm afraid for me slr's are over, still got mine in the cupboard but for me a nikon S210 does the job, 38-114mm zoom 8mp and a 2.5" screen to compose the picture, and fits in a pocket, maybe not profesional but suits me.