New DO zoom a good paparazzo lens?

[Cadenza]

I still think the ideal paparazzo tool
would be a Pro1 type camera, if they
could only increase ISO speed and do
something about the noise levels.
Discreet, sideways framing with useful
swivel screen, and almost pocketable.

But since that day is not here yet,
what would be a good paparazzo lens?
Having to run away from potential
attackers and security personnel, it
wouldn't be wise to carry heavy,
humoungous lenses. The new DO zoom
is great, but probably not fast enough.

[Boosting1Bar]

Or even better, how about leaving these people alone instead of being an ass and doing things to get chased by security personnel? I say if your lens get broken, you probably had it coming.

[Cadenza]

Or even better, how about leaving these people alone instead of being an ass and doing things to get chased by security personnel? I say if your lens get broken, you probably had it coming.


Oh, please!

If "these people" wanted to be left alone they
wouldn't have chosen the profession they did.
They derive enormous privileges from their
celebrity status, and if they are in view at a
public place asking permission to take their
photo is a polite courtesy, not a legal obligation.
If they can't deal with it they can afford shrinks
who'll help them with this "problem."

For $25K a pop, I'll be an ass any day and on
cue. Nice and considerate comes free.

[timmyquest]

I can respect someone who shows up to a place that a celeb is going to be, take a few pics and leave it at that. There is no profession though that says "people with large lenses are going to chase you around town so they can get paid 25 grand for a picture with your finger in your nose".

If the job pays so much, then i guess you dont have to worry about broken gear.

[Cadenza]

There is no profession though that says "people with large lenses are going to chase you around town so they can get paid 25 grand for a picture with your finger in your nose".

You're missing the point. If you are Martha Stewart and you're
putting your finger into your nose, that becomes newsworthy.
People will legitimately want to read about it and see pictures,
and it's the job of photojournalists to gather such images, by
whatever means possible. Democracy is freedom, etc.

Photogs for UK tabloids would cross the Atlantic in a minute for
a picture of, say, Bill Clinton puffing a cigar. Besides, even
when they publicly loathe it, a lot of celebs secretly crave this
stuff -- it's a measure of success and there is nothing worse
than being ignored.

If the press only showed celebs, politicians, etc. only when they
wanted to be seen, journalism would be called public relations
and marketing.


If the job pays so much, then i guess you dont have to worry about broken gear.

True, but I bet they are less concerned about their gear than
they are about saving their CF cards and themselves.

[timmyquest]

I wont agrue this issue with you, you have your morals, i have mine...

[Belmondo]

Last post deleted.

Come on guys. We have women and kids here too.

[Volatile]

Anyone seen the trailer for the new movie "Paparazzi"? Looks like an exciting movie with an easy-to-hate villain.

[karusel]

If "these people" wanted to be left alone they
wouldn't have chosen the profession they did.

This is untrue for the vast majority of celebs. But you go ahead and prove it.

As for the appropriate lens, I'd say the longer the better, 600mm mirror (or the russian 1000mm manual) would probably be just fine if you knock ISO up a few notches.

[petiot]

ohhhh those poor celebrities ... what a shame!! lol

come on guys, those people live on another planet. and they can have their share of problems as everybody. you pay for the lifestyle you have.

and, i am not sure some of you are aware of this, but it is common for celebrities to make deal with paparazzo, in order to be sure not to have ugly photo of them, but also to make a bit of money in the same time.

Several people who discuss the subject of "should we cry for those poor multimillionaire, or not" have highlighted that photo from paparazzi are stunningly good (lighting, pose, dressing) for paparazzi photo .... so when they really beg for it sometime no?

To be honest i would have the shadow of guilt to make money out of one of those. I simply think that the vast majority of those people make poor and uninteresting photo subject!!! and anyway, i dont have a long lens!! :(

but please stop taking their defense, this is laughable.

[Belmondo]

I don't want to engage in a debate on whether or not the Paparazzi are worthwhile are not---that's really a more appropriate topic for a different board. For the purposes of this discussion, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they are photojourhalists and leave it at that.

As to the original question of whether or not it would be a good lens for the paparazzi (hence photojournalists), the answer is pretty much 'Yes.' Most of those folks use flash, so a faster lens shouldn't really be much of an advantage. The great range in focal length is a real plus since all their photos are generally opportunity shots that can't be planned or composed. It is a relatively small, fast-handling lens that is certainly capable of producing images that are easily good enough for print and broadcast media. I believe it will prove to be a very popular lens for that type of use.

[timmyquest]

Ever since Princess Diana died, anyone with a camera and a desire to take a picture of a celeb. is labled "paparazzi".

The truth is that there is a difference between the photographer who is sitting next to the red carpet in hollywood, and the moron with a 400mm lens waiting outside of a starbucks at 9am.

If you guys feel so negativly about these people then i guess you shouldn't suppor ttheir products.

[Belmondo]

If you guys feel so negativly about these people then i guess you shouldn't suppor ttheir products.

:lol: :lol:
This sounds like the sentiments of a high-minded 18-year old. Just wait till you've been married 42 years (like me). You'll appreciate the National Enquirer for the half-hour of peace and quiet it provides every week while my wife studies every juicy little kernel in it.

Thank you National Enquirer.
Thank you Star.
Thank you Examiner.
Thanks to all you distasteful rags.

[roanjohn]

Oh yes!!! Those magazines are quite entertaining.

Ro1

[Persian-Rice]

I never considered the so called "Paparazzi" photographers. Even in the best of situations they take snapshots, not photographs. I agree with ones covering big events, you get some tasteful stuff from that, they are photojournalists.

IMO, the "Paparazzi" are just people who want to make an easy buck and get the thrill of seeing some big name celeb...........

I don't read those tabloids, but I have had the pleasure of viewing those awful quality shots when waiting at the doctors office. I swear, my dog could get a better picture if he could hold a camera.

No offence, but if you have to hide and run away from people, chances are you are not doing the right thing. You don't get your stuff taken away and even get the crap beaten out of you for being a nice and considerate citizen. But its an occupation I guess............I never understood the point behind obsessing over celebs, don't people have more important things to do? like live their own life?

Who gives two craps if Jeniffer Lopez was wearing an orange dress? who cares if oh.........that Brad Pitt and that Girl from Friends umm Cox or Aniston, have an argument? want to know what an argument is? go call your wife fat, there's one to get the divorce papers out...................

Grr, sorry for the rant, I don't mind celebs, I just hate the people who obsess over them.

[Tom W]

I think that the definition of "paparazzi" changes a bit depending on where one is located. Its perhaps a more disdained term in the US, with thoughts of wild photographers chasing the likes of Princess Di to her demise. Its nosey people sticking their lenses over the fences of private property to catch someone off guard.

Other places, the meaning comes closer to photojournalist, at least in the sense of "People" magazine or such (not that People Magazine is all that respectable, but it isn't really disrespectful either - to me, its pretty much useless).

Anyway, there is a right to privacy that all should enjoy within their own yards, cars, or other private places. Perhaps public appearances can be regarded differently, but when one is within the sanctuary of the veil of building, wall, or vehicle, they deserve to maintain that privacy.

[DocFrankenstein]

I never understood the point behind obsessing over celebs, don't people have more important things to do? like live their own life?

Who gives two craps if Jeniffer Lopez was wearing an orange dress? who cares if oh.........that Brad Pitt and that Girl from Friends umm Cox or Aniston, have an argument? want to know what an argument is? go call your wife fat, there's one to get the divorce papers out...................
The general public obscesses over celebs. It means money.

Papparazzi usually don't give a @#$% about the actual celebs, they are after the dough.

[Mthorpe_Davies]

I would be that if anyone of us came across a celeb in a compromising position ie Tom Cruise in a carpark with a chick have relations and you had a camera you would take the shot, I would, a shot like that could sort you out for life.

[sweepiedog]

Maybe I have got the wrong end of the stick but I got the impression that this forum was for people who used their cameras for their own enjoyment. - with the occasional professional trying to steer us all in the right direction. The animosity voiced in this post shows some of my "virtual friends" in a completely different light. If your opinion of paparazzi is that they should not be given the time of day then do just that. zero replies on this thread would have sent a much louder message.

Have a good day.

[Belmondo]

The intent of this thread was a discussion of the 70-300 DO lens as a possible tool for paparazzi. It is not a discussion of the ethics or professionalism of tabloid photographer.