Reading mode: Light Dark

French Open Ump tells still photogs to STOP SHOOTING - guess why

Go to last post
R

Rdefen

Senior Member
Messages
3,509
Reaction score
362
Location
US
Court Chatrier at The French Open has various cutouts in the baseline barriers where photographers like to shoot from (though the same issue occurs from sideline shooting especially while a player is starting the serve motion).

During the Murray v. Wawrinka men's semifinal the Chair Ump (responding to a complaint by Wawrinka) walked over and told the photographers to stop shooting because the noise from their cameras was bothering the players. James Blake (former pro now a TV commentator ) commented that "it's so loud we can hear it up here [TV booth]."

It's an even bigger racket (pun intended) on the sideline where you can have 40+ photographers all hammering their shutter during play. It's quite annoying as well to spectators paying a lot of $$$ to be in the first few rows.

Pro tennis at the Majors is pretty much all 1DXMKII and D5s and older models in the same lines. Certainly almost all of the full time tennis shooters use a "pro" DSLR. For lens 70-200/f2.8 + 300/2.8 is very common. 200-400/f4.0 and 400/2.8 are common too.

It won't win in the short term but mirrorless will win tennis eventually.

And for a time it won today even though very few were using it.
 
Last edited:
Rdefen said:
Court Chatrier at The French Open has various cutouts in the baseline barriers where photographers like to shoot from (though the same issue occurs from sideline shooting especially while a player is starting the serve motion).

During the Murray v. Wawrinka men's semifinal the Chair Ump (responding to a complaint by Wawrinka) walked over and told the photographers to stop shooting because the noise from their cameras was bothering the players. James Blake (former pro now a TV commentator ) commented that "it's so loud we can hear it up here [TV booth]."

It's an even bigger racket (pun intended) on the sideline where you can have 40+ photographers all hammering their shutter during play. It's quite annoying as well to spectators paying a lot of $$$ to be in the first few rows.

Pro tennis at the Majors is pretty much all 1DXMKII and D5s and older models in the same lines. Certainly almost all of the full time tennis shooters use a "pro" DSLR. For lens 70-200/f2.8 + 300/2.8 is very common. 200-400/f4.0 and 400/2.8 are common too.

It won't win in the short term but mirrorless will win tennis eventually.

And for a time it won today even though very few were using it.
Click to expand...
It's clearly audible on TV because they have the effects/grounds microphones cranked up so far you can hear the gravel crunch under the shoes... it's stupid just how loud they have them.

the sounds overall are now where near as loud in person though I do agree put 10 to 50 dslrs with mirror slap all trying to get that "one" photo then even on court it's annoying but honestly these guys are pro players, it's the same every tournament and it would seem in this case just a little precious.

The canon 300 or 400 F2.8 is just about ubiquitous once daylight disappears..

the australian open had a slim majority of Canon bodies but the French seems to more mixed.

whats surprised me is the number of pro bodies and large lenses scattered around the crowd and even tripods... none of which you will get into Australian Open as a spectator
 
I don't understand why the shutters have to be so loud?

Is is partly an 'image' thing, like attention-craving jerks with loud exhaust pipes?
 
It's funny how tennis and golf have to be done in absolute silence but real life-or-death things like brain surgery can be done with rock music blaring in the OR.
 
Bobthearch said:
I don't understand why the shutters have to be so loud?

Is is partly an 'image' thing, like attention-craving jerks with loud exhaust pipes?

--
Personal non-commercial websites with no ads or tracking:
Local photography: http://ratonphotos.com/
Travel photography: http://placesandpics.com/
Click to expand...
I hope you understand it is a mechanical device, and it is not 100 perfect, so some of the energy went into noise when attached parts knock against each other. Now, you can reduce the noise by using oil to take up the clearances between the mirror and the hinges, but you got a D600 issue. :)
 
Last edited:
fotoriffic said:
It's funny how tennis and golf have to be done in absolute silence but real life-or-death things like brain surgery can be done with rock music blaring in the OR.

--
Fotoriffic
If you can't be an athlete, be an athletic supporter.
Click to expand...
Very true. To each his own. They still have rules in the libraries where you have to be quiet, don't they? It is their game, let them make the f***** rules. How embarrassing, even though I had permission to shoot, I was kickout of a HS tennis match because the kid didn't want a photographer there. I guess even a 70-200mm lens at courtside looked to intimidating to him.
 
Last edited:
Not true. Canon cameras are quieter than Nikons. They all make a quiet mode for a reason, don't they? I've always complained that the D700 sounded like a train wreck.
 
Last edited:
wasserball said:
Not true. Canon cameras are quieter than Nikons. They all make a quiet mode for a reason, don't they? I've always complained that the D700 sounded like a train wreck.
Click to expand...
That's what I suspected actually, that some cameras are more loud than they really need to be. I don't think the Nikon DX cameras I've owned are that loud, certainly not "press conference" loud.
 
Not taking anything away from sports photographers who earn their living with it (I am only a humble part-time pro), but I do feel that reliance on high fps has seemed to replace skill. Just spray and pray and don't care about the fact that your DSLR sounds like a machine gun. You'll get the shot in there, somewhere.

I shoot weightlifting, which obviously is different from tennis, but very similar in several key respects. High concentration required for the athlete, rapid (but predictable) movement patterns, and incredible acceleration leading to contact between the athlete and object.

I shoot that with a D800, and evidently 4fps is too slow for bursts. Which means you need to time the shot yourself. And guess what: it's perfectly possible to do that pretty consistently if you know the sport.
 
sts2 said:
Not taking anything away from sports photographers who earn their living with it (I am only a humble part-time pro), but I do feel that reliance on high fps has seemed to replace skill. Just spray and pray and don't care about the fact that your DSLR sounds like a machine gun. You'll get the shot in there, somewhere.

I shoot weightlifting, which obviously is different from tennis, but very similar in several key respects. High concentration required for the athlete, rapid (but predictable) movement patterns, and incredible acceleration leading to contact between the athlete and object.

I shoot that with a D800, and evidently 4fps is too slow for bursts. Which means you need to time the shot yourself. And guess what: it's perfectly possible to do that pretty consistently if you know the sport.
Click to expand...
Very true, especially getting the bat on ball shot in baseball. Do the math, your chance of getting this shot at this angle with burst is zillich. I timed in tennis too. but you might miss the emotion before or after the shot.

 
Last edited:
I don't know -- I cover ~70 MiLB games each summer and get plenty of bat on ball shots somewhat randomly. Good timing certainly helps but it's a numbers game as well. Do enough 10fps bursts the course of the season and the blind squirrel will eventually find a few nuts.

Unrelated to baseball but related to camera noise ... I got "banned" from shooting my daughter's choral recitals because my D5 is so loud "it distracts the singers and the audience." 100% agree. They were right to do so. Nothing I can do about it.
 
sts2 said:
Not taking anything away from sports photographers who earn their living with it (I am only a humble part-time pro), but I do feel that reliance on high fps has seemed to replace skill. Just spray and pray and don't care about the fact that your DSLR sounds like a machine gun. You'll get the shot in there, somewhere.

I shoot weightlifting, which obviously is different from tennis, but very similar in several key respects. High concentration required for the athlete, rapid (but predictable) movement patterns, and incredible acceleration leading to contact between the athlete and object.

I shoot that with a D800, and evidently 4fps is too slow for bursts. Which means you need to time the shot yourself. And guess what: it's perfectly possible to do that pretty consistently if you know the sport.
Click to expand...
Higher fps is really about choice. All other things being equal, if I have a 10fps camera and a 5 fps camera and I'm shooting a player sliding into base, with the 10fps camera have twice the number of shots from which to choose the ideal moment. I don't care how good you are, you can't tell me that you can time the the peak moment of a slide no matter how good your knowledge of the game may be. You get the shot or you don't. I'll take twice as many frames every single time. If people want to go back to the glory days when men were men and caners were 1 fps, then by all means do so. I have yet to hear a professional sports photographers say, "what I really need is fewer fps." Quite the opposite. I just can't see wearing lower fps as some sort of badge of honor. But to each his own!
 
ZurichPhoto said:
sts2 said:
Not taking anything away from sports photographers who earn their living with it (I am only a humble part-time pro), but I do feel that reliance on high fps has seemed to replace skill. Just spray and pray and don't care about the fact that your DSLR sounds like a machine gun. You'll get the shot in there, somewhere.

I shoot weightlifting, which obviously is different from tennis, but very similar in several key respects. High concentration required for the athlete, rapid (but predictable) movement patterns, and incredible acceleration leading to contact between the athlete and object.

I shoot that with a D800, and evidently 4fps is too slow for bursts. Which means you need to time the shot yourself. And guess what: it's perfectly possible to do that pretty consistently if you know the sport.
Click to expand...
Higher fps is really about choice. All other things being equal, if I have a 10fps camera and a 5 fps camera and I'm shooting a player sliding into base, with the 10fps camera have twice the number of shots from which to choose the ideal moment. I don't care how good you are, you can't tell me that you can time the the peak moment of a slide no matter how good your knowledge of the game may be. You get the shot or you don't. I'll take twice as many frames every single time. If people want to go back to the glory days when men were men and caners were 1 fps, then by all means do so. I have yet to hear a professional sports photographers say, "what I really need is fewer fps." Quite the opposite. I just can't see wearing lower fps as some sort of badge of honor. But to each his own!
Click to expand...
I agree with that. I'd love to have more fps and would certainly not say no to it, for exactly the reason you mention.

However, I firmly believe in "live and let live". Athletes come first and foremost in sport. Coverage comes later. When you're shooting a sport where silence is appreciated and concentration is required, I believe it's abuse to just rapid-fire everything up to the point where athletes/officials have to make this sort of decision. It's therefore in everyone's interest to balance your technological capabilities with skill.

Or of course we all get A9's and can go back to spray-and-pray, in silence ;-)
 
There is a segment of the population that thinks the louder something is the better. A car with a loud V8 is better than a quiet Tesla. A Harley is better than an electric motorcycle.

They are like that obnoxious kid always trying to get attention.
 
Joe Niepce said:
There is a segment of the population that thinks the louder something is the better. A car with a loud V8 is better than a quiet Tesla. A Harley is better than an electric motorcycle.

They are like that obnoxious kid always trying to get attention.
Click to expand...
Great point Joe. I would bet you have some great sports shots to share.
 
sts2 said:
ZurichPhoto said:
sts2 said:
Not taking anything away from sports photographers who earn their living with it (I am only a humble part-time pro), but I do feel that reliance on high fps has seemed to replace skill. Just spray and pray and don't care about the fact that your DSLR sounds like a machine gun. You'll get the shot in there, somewhere.

I shoot weightlifting, which obviously is different from tennis, but very similar in several key respects. High concentration required for the athlete, rapid (but predictable) movement patterns, and incredible acceleration leading to contact between the athlete and object.

I shoot that with a D800, and evidently 4fps is too slow for bursts. Which means you need to time the shot yourself. And guess what: it's perfectly possible to do that pretty consistently if you know the sport.
Click to expand...
Higher fps is really about choice. All other things being equal, if I have a 10fps camera and a 5 fps camera and I'm shooting a player sliding into base, with the 10fps camera have twice the number of shots from which to choose the ideal moment. I don't care how good you are, you can't tell me that you can time the the peak moment of a slide no matter how good your knowledge of the game may be. You get the shot or you don't. I'll take twice as many frames every single time. If people want to go back to the glory days when men were men and caners were 1 fps, then by all means do so. I have yet to hear a professional sports photographers say, "what I really need is fewer fps." Quite the opposite. I just can't see wearing lower fps as some sort of badge of honor. But to each his own!
Click to expand...
I agree with that. I'd love to have more fps and would certainly not say no to it, for exactly the reason you mention.

However, I firmly believe in "live and let live". Athletes come first and foremost in sport. Coverage comes later. When you're shooting a sport where silence is appreciated and concentration is required, I believe it's abuse to just rapid-fire everything up to the point where athletes/officials have to make this sort of decision. It's therefore in everyone's interest to balance your technological capabilities with skill.

Or of course we all get A9's and can go back to spray-and-pray, in silence ;-)
Click to expand...
Actually I would say the paying fans and sponsors come first. The athletes are essentially employees doing their job and getting paid directly or indirectly by sponsors and those who purchase tickets. Certainly agree on reasonable and appropriately timed noise.
 
It's interesting -- my guess is that if you told 100 users of loud flagship DSLRs that you could make their cameras 50% louder or 50% more quiet, I bet the vast majority would go for more quiet. Many are conscious of the noise and that it is a distraction that could get us bounced in closed quarters events.

There are always folks who want to draw attention to themselves by making loud noises. I'd bet demographically/proportionally there are far fewer of these folks in the photography community than in the public at large. Just a guess.
 
Last edited:
scokill said:
sts2 said:
ZurichPhoto said:
sts2 said:
Not taking anything away from sports photographers who earn their living with it (I am only a humble part-time pro), but I do feel that reliance on high fps has seemed to replace skill. Just spray and pray and don't care about the fact that your DSLR sounds like a machine gun. You'll get the shot in there, somewhere.

I shoot weightlifting, which obviously is different from tennis, but very similar in several key respects. High concentration required for the athlete, rapid (but predictable) movement patterns, and incredible acceleration leading to contact between the athlete and object.

I shoot that with a D800, and evidently 4fps is too slow for bursts. Which means you need to time the shot yourself. And guess what: it's perfectly possible to do that pretty consistently if you know the sport.
Click to expand...
Higher fps is really about choice. All other things being equal, if I have a 10fps camera and a 5 fps camera and I'm shooting a player sliding into base, with the 10fps camera have twice the number of shots from which to choose the ideal moment. I don't care how good you are, you can't tell me that you can time the the peak moment of a slide no matter how good your knowledge of the game may be. You get the shot or you don't. I'll take twice as many frames every single time. If people want to go back to the glory days when men were men and caners were 1 fps, then by all means do so. I have yet to hear a professional sports photographers say, "what I really need is fewer fps." Quite the opposite. I just can't see wearing lower fps as some sort of badge of honor. But to each his own!
Click to expand...
I agree with that. I'd love to have more fps and would certainly not say no to it, for exactly the reason you mention.

However, I firmly believe in "live and let live". Athletes come first and foremost in sport. Coverage comes later. When you're shooting a sport where silence is appreciated and concentration is required, I believe it's abuse to just rapid-fire everything up to the point where athletes/officials have to make this sort of decision. It's therefore in everyone's interest to balance your technological capabilities with skill.

Or of course we all get A9's and can go back to spray-and-pray, in silence ;-)
Click to expand...
Actually I would say the paying fans and sponsors come first. The athletes are essentially employees doing their job and getting paid directly or indirectly by sponsors and those who purchase tickets. Certainly agree on reasonable and appropriately timed noise.
Click to expand...
Hah! I was expecting that response as I was writing it. I guess you are right. My work is in small sports where there's not enough money going around.

But in the end, spectators want to see the game uninterrupted and sponsors want their athletes to win and thereby create more exposure. So being as undisruptive to the game as possible is still valid for us photographers.
 
ZurichPhoto said:
It's interesting -- my guess is that if you told 100 users of loud flagship DSLRs that you could make their cameras 50% louder or 50% more quiet, I bet the vast majority would go for more quiet. Many are conscious of the noise and that it is a distraction that could get us bounced in closed quarters events.

There are always folks who want to draw attention to themselves by making loud noises. I'd bet demographically/proportionally there are far fewer of these folks in the photography community than in the public at large. Just a guess.
Click to expand...
If you had an option and the quietest camera and associated lenses were also the best tools for the job that's an easy answer. If you had no option but to use the quietest camera regardless of lens choices that also is an easy choice. The march to mirrorless is inevitable it's just timing of critical mass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

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