DSLRUsers.com

Just came back from the Australian Open, having attended day 8 on a bargain $20 ground pass. Happily shooting away for most of the day (handheld) with the 70-300mm f/4-5.6G lens -noted one or two of the pros looking sideways ... didn't give it much of a thought

Fast forward 6 hours later and the stadium had emptied of photographers and only a small audience for the doubles games. Make my way to courtside (Vodafone arena) and start shooting the last game of the day. 10 minutes later one of the yellow shirted security people saunters up and tells me that I cannot use any lens longer than 200mm in the arena ... OK on the body but not on the lens!

Must admit that this was the first time I had tried shooting at a tennis match but a restriction on the lens length was a surprise. Can understand the economic motivation for it (media companies paying $$$$ for the right to photos and me $20) but peeved that my little 70-300mm could be put in the same class as the monopod mounted cannons of the pros ...

Will try to stay back in the crowd (and away from courtside seats) the next time

I guess you could use a 200mm on the d70, get an effective 300mm with the dx multiplier, and be 50% ahead of the game!

Shhhhhh.....

paul - you would be OK in that case with the 70-200VR but I bet they would still come up to you even though it is only 200mm!!!

Chris

Imagien if you had the Bigma or "the Russian"! Then you'd get some friendlies running over

Never thought of it before though...

Cheers,
Mudder

Unfortunately alot of places are imposing the 200mm limit on spectators now. Alot of raceways and other sporting events are doing it. Few people have thought about a 70-200mm VR with a TC, but you still can't get the reach or quality some of the bigger primes give you.

It shits me really, but there isn't much you can do about it really.

Hi brembo,

I'm surprised about the restrictions that appear to be imposed on the person who owns camera gear with a larger than 200mm lens.
Well I haven't had the experience myself, yet, that you are referring too because I haven't been to such venues.
You are also saying that a 70-200mm VR with TC doesn't have the reach and quality of a prime of larger focal length ?
How do you think a prime would compare to a 340 mm prime if there were such a thing ?
What kind of lenses are you referring to ?
What is it that alerts security ?
Is it the lenght of the lens, the diameter or what ?
Could you get away with a Nikon 70-300 or Sigma 70-300 ?

Cheers
CD

christiand wrote:You are also saying that a 70-200mm VR with TC doesn't have the reach and quality of a prime of larger focal length ?
How do you think a prime would compare to a 340 mm prime if there were such a thing ?
What kind of lenses are you referring to ?
What is it that alerts security ?
Is it the lenght of the lens, the diameter or what ?
Could you get away with a Nikon 70-300 or Sigma 70-300 ?

I havent experienced it myself, but know a few people who have been asked to stop taking photos.

By Primes I refer to lenses like the 300mm f2.8 & f4, you can add a 1.4TC (420mm) or 1.7TC (510mm) onto these and get great reach, and great quality images. Not exactly the type of lenses most joe spectators would have, but not entirely out of the reach of ametuer photographers. I'd love one myself!

The rest I'm only hypothesizing, or is my opinion on, so take it with a grain of salt.

Unless security has been told to clamp down on it, or someone tips them off, you should be able to get away with having the longer lenses. Just as long as you don't whip out a 600mm f4 you should be fine. Several mates have used 70-300 lenses at race tracks without issue, and others have been asked to stop.

Events where the arena used us much smaller, or have much broader level of interest, like the given example of tennis, it's alot easier to pick out someone using prosumer level gear in a restricted area of a tennis stadium.

Ultimately it's that fact of the event organisers not getting any benefit off of images from the croud, so they try to limit it to the more benefitial photographers, the ones with press passes around their necks.

Come on, one of us must be a lawyer - law student - bush lawyer at least?

What is the legality of these restrictions? You would think that the only rights the promoters would have would be to restrict commercial usage of shots of "their" event. Even a pro photographer should have the right to use their gear to take personal photos, so long as they don't sell them.

Seems to me, the promoters are confusing professional capture with commercial use.

If they've sold a ticket with nothing about restricted photography, would you be within your rights to ask for a refund if you couldn't capture personal memories of the event?

ru32day wrote:Come on, one of us must be a lawyer - law student - bush lawyer at least?

What is the legality of these restrictions? You would think that the only rights the promoters would have would be to restrict commercial usage of their shots. Even a pro photographer should have the right to use their gear to take personal photos, so long as they don't sell them.

Seems to me, the promoters are confusing professional capture with commercial use.

If they've sold a ticket with nothing about restricted photography, would you be within your rights to ask for a refund if you could capture personal memories of the event?

l would have to disagree with you there ru32day,
the reason why they haven't got anything beside about restriction of photography beside lenses sizes. cos if it wasn't there, they have would force every partron to sign a waivers saying you cannot use images taken here for commerical use etc etc. hence the lenses restriction. Or you might end up with knockoff merchandise with tennis players on them.

There nothing saying that you can't take a personal capture just don't use lenses over 200mm. Honestly why would you carry all that gear with you anyway? you paid your money to watch/enjoy a tennis match not to take photos. if you wanted to photograph tennis why not try your local matches? i dont really think any of the photog there could do any "personal" shots, their editors probaby own all copyright to an images they take.

That was my first question> Did you sign anything when you got the pass? Was there anything posted as far asrestrictions? I am not a huge tennis fan but I know that with golf there are "ettiquets" assumed and penalties if they are broken. I'm not sure they can sell you a pass to take photos then restrict you without some sort of notification in writing...Then again, it is Australia...


Andy

As far I known, all Pro-photogs at any events which they're in the restricted media section/ area with official passes, they can take the photos with their pro gears, otherwise you'll be restricted or ask to stop to use any longer lens or pro lenses inside the stadium.
I have been in few events here and in the US, they have the same policies for people paying ticket to watch the match or seeing some funs, they searched bag not only for drinks or weapons but if the security guy see the big lens, they asked you not to bring it in.

The same policy is applied to our community's events, the organizer will refuse anyone with a zoom lens as 80-200 to shoot inside any events without applying their official passes or issued passes by the organizer.
I had to ask one local paper PJ, stop shooting last year in the Citizenship Ceremony at the venue, he got the pass from his editor but not our official passes, and I approved few passes in the last few days for local newspaper to have their PJ to shoot at our Chinese NYE on the 8/01.

Please don't ask me why, I have doing this for years and the restriction is applied.

I was once walking through the Sydney Botanical Gardens when I came across some kind of stage performance in action. There were about 100 spectaters sitting on the grass watching. As I approached with my camera gear a short, officious weasel looking fellow jumped up from behind a desk that was on the grass and informed me that "Sorry! You are not permitted to take photographs of this show because it's copyright to the ABC!"....He might as well have waved a red flag at a bulll! In a public place I will photograph whatever I please, except children who are wards of the state or people on the grounds of any court of law. So I casually walked over to the stage area and started shooting....with a big lens. I will defend my right to photograph and anybody who trys to stop me is in for a battle. Obviously there are things and situations where my sense of decency tells me I should not take photographs....but everything else is fair hunting.

I agree with Matt. How can anyone even consider trying to stop someone shooting an event that is open to the public and in fair view of anyone that passes by?

Although i remember seeing a big sign outside the Colonial Stadium (or whoever sponsors it now) in Melbourne that prohibited cameras of any sort into the stadium. It was not printed on my ticket so i was only aware of the policy when i got to the stadium. I did not have a camera anyway, but i wonder what they would do with it if you did hand it over for safe keeping so you are still allowed access to the stadium.

Would you be entitled to money back for the ticket if you refuse. if i took my D70 and long lenses to the stadium, was refused access, i would not trust my equipment to a bunch of poorly paid goons.

Hmmm, another can of worms........

Next time, point out your filter thread "77mm" to the security guard. See, that's well within the 200mm limit!

I wonder if they only pick on SLR users or do they also bother the PHD crowd at these events - some models with 10x or 20x zooms could give effective 300mm+ focal lengths.

"I will defend my right to photograph and anybody who trys to stop me is in for a battle."

I'm with MattK on this one. Lucky for me, I can pull the "speaka no engli" card if need be...

paull wrote:10 minutes later one of the yellow shirted security people saunters up and tells me that I cannot use any lens longer than 200mm in the arena ... OK on the body but not on the lens!

So a 70-200 VR + 1.7TC is fine but a 70-300G is not? Goddamn ludicrous if you ask me! Actually I can just see the 70-200 VR conversation "Sorry sir, that lens is huge, no lenses over 200 mm allowed"; "Read this and weep mofo!".

So you got a 70-200mm on your camera and you point it out to the goons....but do they notice that little 2x convertor in your pocket?

Interesting thread.

When considering the people that would be checking, I wonder if that's only in response to a "pro" feeling threatened by someone using a zoom lens that "looks capable" of producing a high zoom, quality image (ie: size)... I would suspect that the only thing that's being noticed enough to warrant "closer inspection" would be governed by physical size of the lens, use the hood and it'll attract attention etc... I doubt *very* much if it's really the issue of reach, I doubt if the people that inspect the gear would have the foggiest idea, perhaps if we mark over the length written on the lens, maybe that'd be enough... I think the 70-200 would attract more attention in that way than the 80-400 for example, obviously not for reach but rather sheer bulk. Some P&S cams have huge zooms but they wouldn’t attract the attention of pro’s to warrent making them feel threatened. Chuck a physically large lens on it and suddenly you’ll be noticed…

I remember at the Melbourne Zoo recently there was one guy with a zoom and hood (on a monopod) so large they would have made me over-balance (inject c-word here)… That would get anyone's attention... Hmm maybe that's why it was used

Cheers,
Mudder