No "BIG" lenses allowed

[Thrasher]

Okay so today I went with my family to the Mountain Dew Action Sports Tour in Portland, Oregon (kinda like the X-games)

at the entrance gate they were doing backpack checks. So I handed my bag to the lady and she looked inside and said:

"Young man, you are going to need to take all these lenses off if you want to shoot inside here. You only can use the smallest lens here. The event has their own profesional Photogs, Your camera is considered a profesional camera and you can't have big lenses like these so it would be considered an infringement"


- have any of you guys had this same situation?

- have any of you guys been to this event at any of the other stops on the tour

-I know security can say where you can and can't shoot but can they really forbid pictures being taken of the athletes or forbid people for having "Big Lenses"?


- If there really was an infringement for taking pictures of the action sports team, what dodes it matter whether it is through a 50 or 500mm lens? Isn't a picture a picture?

-How were they determing what was Big and what was Profesional

- What could the security guards actually have done about it

 

[Vette Boss]

I have been to a bunch of events and never heard of any "lens restrictions", even with my 28-200mm lens on the Pro1. Shouldn't be any of their business what you're using anyway.

The most they could do is take your camera during the event and give it back when you left.

 

[Thrasher]

they didn't really have any clear rules or guidlines on what they considered proffesional or what was a big lens.

how did they determine that my camera "looks to proffesional to be allowed"




it seems a bit like being arrested because your car "looks fast" dont you think?

 

[ArosaMike]

The only thing I've ever heard of is some national parks in the US having a go at photographers if they use tripods as it can indicate a professional photographer for which you apparently need a licence for. Seems stupid to me!

 

[Viper007Bond]

The only thing I've ever heard of is some national parks in the US having a go at photographers if they use tripods as it can indicate a professional photographer for which you apparently need a licence for. Seems stupid to me!

I think you have been highly misinformed. I have never heard of such a rule and I have used a tripod (as have TONS of other people I've seen) in state and national parks, even in front of rangers.

@Thrasher: makes sense. They don't want unathorized media taking photos and putting it in a magazine or whatever.

Hell, at least they let you take your camera in. I've been to concerts and such where they don't even allow cameras, period.

 

[rootrider]

what gets me is the "it looks professional" statement. It just overflows with hints that the rule isn't very well defined. When I went into the McChord air show a few weeks ago, they had a rule that disallowed any cameras larger than a certain amount, including lenses, allowed. I dunno if it was for security reasons or not, but at least it was more defined..

 

[sandor_]

if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it does it make a sound?

if a photographer isnt a professional, can their camera be professional?




thats when you need this: http://tinyurl.com/alwkn
a 70-300mm lens that isnt much longer than a 50mm lens

i hate stupid rules about photography....

 

[bihus]

The only thing I've ever heard of is some national parks in the US having a go at photographers if they use tripods as it can indicate a professional photographer for which you apparently need a licence for. Seems stupid to me!

The opposite thing happened in the Teatro Alla Scala, in Milan. A friend of mine asked to take a picture of the entrance, and as he took his pocket tripod, and took a while to take a picture, the security-guard let him took a picture inside the Theatre-hall because he looked like he knew how to take pictures... :lol:

 

[Thrasher]

thats when you need this: http://tinyurl.com/alwkn
a 70-300mm lens that isnt much longer than a 50mm lens

i hate stupid rules about photography....

Either that or a mirror lens

 

[ArosaMike]

The only thing I've ever heard of is some national parks in the US having a go at photographers if they use tripods as it can indicate a professional photographer for which you apparently need a licence for. Seems stupid to me!

I think you have been highly misinformed. I have never heard of such a rule and I have used a tripod (as have TONS of other people I've seen) in state and national parks, even in front of rangers.

@Thrasher: makes sense. They don't want unathorized media taking photos and putting it in a magazine or whatever.

Hell, at least they let you take your camera in. I've been to concerts and such where they don't even allow cameras, period.

Fair enough. I just read the tripod thing a while back, suggesting that some park rangers etc can be a bit funny about it.

 

[BlaRo]

I've never heard that national park rule either, but I'll just bring a bunch of crappy underexposed/blurry/crooked pictures I took along and tell the ranger, "do these look like professional pictures to you?!"