Reading mode: Light Dark

Lens Discrimination at the Australian Open!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Go to last post
M

mark finn

Leading Member
Messages
583
Reaction score
360
Location
Melbourne, AU
Is anyone else getting a bit over being hassled because you choose to use good gear?

I went the the Australian Open tennis last night to take a few shots with my gripped 50D, 70-200f4 and 135f2, having read the rules which state no video, and no lenses longer than 200mm. At the gate they hassled me a bit and made me unload the bag to convince them that there wasn't a monster 500mm f4 hidden in my small backpack, but I was expecting that.

All was cool, I was getting some nice shots, when suddenly an AO official appeared beside me and said "Control is a bit worried about how many shots you're taking". I was a bit taken aback, and told him that I had read the conditions of entry and nowhere does it indicate there was a limit on the number of images you could take. He then changed tack and asked to see my lenses to make sure they were OK. I showed him, pointing out the clearly marked 200mm and 135mm on each and mentioning that the conditions clearly state no lenses over 200. That seemed to convince him, and he got on the radio and said (quite loudly) "Yeah, I've checked both lenses and they're both below 200, so I guess it's OK" He then wished me a pleasant evening and left.

He was totally respectful and courteous (as was I), but I felt a bit picked on, given that all around me were people with compacts with 300 and 400mm equivalent zooms happily snapping away. Many were also taking video, including one guy who was resting the camera on the fence recording most of the match. It's seriously making me consider if I should just sell all my gear and go with a good compact, and not have to deal with what is becoming an increasingly common occurrence.

Anyway, to end on a positive note, the 135 f2 ROCKS as a sports lens!



--
Please check out my photos at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drmark/
 
nice story ..great shot ..wrong title ... abviously as they did not toss you and your lens out there is/was no "lens discrimination" ..

cheers
 
Nice story and picture. Thanks. I have had trouble taking pictures of my son playing the tuba in elementary school. It seems some parents didn't like me pointing my 200mm f.2.0 IS with camo coat at their little ones. Some actually complained to the teachers. Luckily I have known the principal for years as my oldest daughter (a prosecutor) went to Yale with her. (I have 3 generations of children). Otherwise, I might have had to do as you suggest and take my Panny ZS3 next time.

Gordon

--
'Who loves yah, Baby?'
... Lt. Theo Kojak, Manhattan South
 
I do think you were being singled out, and I would bet it's your white 70-200... I have the same but so far it's been more like "oh, make way for the pro photographer" whenever I take it out... Which never fails to make me chuckle, seeing how I'm an amateur... It's a people magnet, for good or for bad...
 
Sure it was discrimination, as he was singled out for greater scrutiny because of a particular attribute (having big lenses)

That the discrimination did not result in adverse action makes it no less discrimination. Still frustrating no doubt.

To the OP, the bridge cameras might have the reach, but you know (and I know you know) your set up gives you better images overall. Some people just suck, though, and given a little power (like enforcing arbitrary rules), they go crazy.
 
I actually don't have any problems with the fact that there are rules, and I was abiding by them completely (not even trying to sneak in an extender or anything). What puzzles me, though, is who the rules are protecting. Three groups come to mind:

1) Other patrons. Sure, if I was swinging about a 500mm f4 in the stands I can understand that might be annoying to those around me, and that perhaps accounts for the no monopod rules. But people with national flags are possibly more of a menace in this respect.

2) Working pros. I've seen lots of places restrict the sale of images and I'm totally cool with that. I don't want to do anyone out of a living. However, I would like to test my abilities and my gear against the best, and events like the open are a good opportunity to do this.

3) The players. Like all celebrities, players are getting more precious about how and where they are presented, but again I would think a "no publication" rule would suffice here.

4) The organisers. Someone on another board mentioned that event organisers charge media a hefty fee for the premium positions they have, and perhaps are worried that that freelancers are bypassing this and getting their shots from the stands. This makes the most sense to me, but it would be a shame if the reaction to this is a blanket ban on anything capable of producing professional-level results.

Like many of us on these boards, photographic opportunities are one of the main reasons we go to events like this in the first place. If these restrictions continue to expand, I hope the resulting drop in attendance is enough to make them do a rethink.
--
Please check out my photos at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drmark/
 
mark finn said:
He was totally respectful and courteous (as was I), but I felt a bit picked on, given that all around me were people with compacts with 300 and 400mm equivalent zooms happily snapping away.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but their 400mm compacts were quite a bit smaller than a DSLR with an equivalent lens so maybe it's a size issue. Either way their IQ wouldn't be considered a threat to the pros that shoot with 400's.

I wonder what they would say if you had a 1.4x or 2x extender coupled to your 70-200?........I'd guess it wouldn't even be noticed........
--
Regards,
Hank

 
mark finn said:
Is anyone else getting a bit over being hassled because you choose to use good gear?
Click to expand...
Yep, it becoming ridiculous. Not long ago I've encounter even more bizzare limitation: cameras with lenses more than 5cm in diameter was considered pro and bunned. And that was at city park.
mark finn said:
He was totally respectful and courteous (as was I), but I felt a bit picked on, given that all around me were people with compacts with 300 and 400mm equivalent zooms happily snapping away.
Click to expand...
Strictly speaking your equivalent FL was 112-320 and 216. For both you and others with P&S FL limitation could be turned eihter way. Reason you was picked for extra checking probably is big wite lens attracted attention.

By the way was in the rule something about extenders? Or how exactly FL limitation was formulated?
mark finn said:
Anyway, to end on a positive note, the 135 f2 ROCKS as a sports lens!
Click to expand...
Nice picture.
 
Since you were using a 50D you got away with the equivalent of a 320mm lens due to the crop factor. So you should not complain too much about the people with superzoom compacts.

With a 5D you would not have been allowed to use a 300mm lens and with the 50D you were allowed to do so (in 35mm equivalent).

--
Slowly learning to use the 450D and and the Canon G6.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/ .
 
I've actually been lucky enough to score a ticket in a corporate box for the mens final and I was wondering whether or not I should bother taking my gear - I also have the 70-200 f4 IS. You seemed to have been quite close though - is the 200mm going to be a bit limited from higher up?

Cheers
--
'If you don't know where you are going, any road will lead you there.'
http://www.flickr.com/photos/oliviamair/
 
It is a concern. I was on holiday in Miami a coule of years ago and was refused entry to the Seaquarium because I had a 40D with 70-200 L f/4 IS. They had a no-entry type sign with a white lens in the middle.
 
mark finn said:
Is anyone else getting a bit over being hassled because you choose to use good gear?

I went the the Australian Open tennis last night to take a few shots with my gripped 50D, 70-200f4 and 135f2, having read the rules which state no video, and no lenses longer than 200mm. At the gate they hassled me a bit and made me unload the bag to convince them that there wasn't a monster 500mm f4 hidden in my small backpack, but I was expecting that.

All was cool, I was getting some nice shots, when suddenly an AO official appeared beside me and said "Control is a bit worried about how many shots you're taking". I was a bit taken aback, and told him that I had read the conditions of entry and nowhere does it indicate there was a limit on the number of images you could take. He then changed tack and asked to see my lenses to make sure they were OK. I showed him, pointing out the clearly marked 200mm and 135mm on each and mentioning that the conditions clearly state no lenses over 200. That seemed to convince him, and he got on the radio and said (quite loudly) "Yeah, I've checked both lenses and they're both below 200, so I guess it's OK" He then wished me a pleasant evening and left.

He was totally respectful and courteous (as was I), but I felt a bit picked on, given that all around me were people with compacts with 300 and 400mm equivalent zooms happily snapping away. Many were also taking video, including one guy who was resting the camera on the fence recording most of the match. It's seriously making me consider if I should just sell all my gear and go with a good compact, and not have to deal with what is becoming an increasingly common occurrence.

Anyway, to end on a positive note, the 135 f2 ROCKS as a sports lens!



--
Please check out my photos at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/drmark/
Click to expand...
You say the compacts have 300-400mm focal lengths, but you had 320mm? What's the difference?

--
  • Jan
 
Compacts do NOT have 300mm lenses. They have tiny sensors that give the same angle of view. Picture quality is far less and someone is not affraid of lower quality pictures. That's the difference. I think??? :)

-G-

--
'Who loves yah, Baby?'
... Lt. Theo Kojak, Manhattan South
 
Gordon Leitch said:
Compacts do NOT have 300mm lenses. They have tiny sensors that give the same angle of view. Picture quality is far less and someone is not affraid of lower quality pictures. That's the difference. I think??? :)

-G-

--
'Who loves yah, Baby?'
... Lt. Theo Kojak, Manhattan South
Click to expand...
Of course the quailty is lower, and the real focal lengths MUCH shorter. But the OP mentioned compacts with 300-400mm EQUIVALENT lenses, and in that case his own lenses should also be expressed in equivalent focal lengths, that is 216mm and 112-320mm. And that is more than the 200mm max limit.

--
  • Jan
 
Now I understand what you said the 300mm, etc. I just checked some US baseball stadium rules and the two I checked said cameras and lenses allowed, but everything you bring in must fit inside a 16" x 16" x 8" box and only be used for personal use and not block other fans, etc. So would a 300mm f2.8 and body fit in that box? I don't know off hand. I assume the reversed hood would be okay going in. I know they have those boxes at the gate to check. I stopped going to games when the tickets went over $50 for good seats.

-G-
--
'Who loves yah, Baby?'
... Lt. Theo Kojak, Manhattan South
 
So, they'd let in a 200/2L IS but not a 55-250? That's kind of funny!

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Gordon Leitch said:
Now I understand what you said the 300mm, etc. I just checked some US baseball stadium rules and the two I checked said cameras and lenses allowed, but everything you bring in must fit inside a 16" x 16" x 8" box and only be used for personal use and not block other fans, etc. So would a 300mm f2.8 and body fit in that box?
Click to expand...
A 400/2.8 and a 500/4 would. A 600/4 and 800/5.6 would not.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

F
Recommended camera/lens for wildlife (low budget)
Replies
13
Views
34K
butterflyman
B
C
50-200 owners! Do you actually need the lens?
2 3
Replies
49
Views
21K
HicHic
HicHic
J
My 86yo technophobe father wants to buy an ILC
Replies
9
Views
1K
Lepewhi
L
Joe Lynch
E-3 to E-5, a good day with the old cameras
Replies
3
Views
3K
Skeeterbytes
S
mreynolds767
Photobombed by a mountain sheep
2
Replies
24
Views
3K
mfinley
mfinley

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top