Taping camera logo?

I've seen someone taping his camera logo. And I was wondering what's the whole purpose of it? Is it because they do not want to advertise Canon? The guy was using 5DII, and while you could still see the 5D Mark II, you could not see the Canon letters on top.

Anyone knows why people do that?

Some (absurdly) claim some security reason. As if people wont steal it if you cant read canon under the tape.

gonzogolf wrote in post #14478957
Some (absurdly) claim some security reason. As if people wont steal it if you cant read canon under the tape.

Yes, that happens, although it seems pointless to most people (myself included). The other possibility is sponsorship issues, if at an event sponsored by a camera company, those using rival brands may have to cover the branding to use their cameras, I have known that on occasion.

aboss3 wrote in post #14478941
I've seen someone taping his camera logo. And I was wondering what's the whole purpose of it? Is it because they do not want to advertise Canon? The guy was using 5DII, and while you could still see the 5D Mark II, you could not see the Canon letters on top.

Anyone knows why people do that?

A photographer I know painted, yes painted the logo black. He did this to avoid reflections when shooting through windows or reflective surfaces etc..... Yeah go figure.

It probably goes back to when Honeywell had the US license for Pentax cameras; to bring an Asahi (the actual maker) Pentax into the country, you had to deface the maker's name. That was irrespective of the duty, strictly due to trademark reasons. So a lot of top photographers would be running around with the brand name obscured.

So it's not really a security issue. Looks like it's due to the sponsorship or licensing...

aboss3 wrote in post #14479031
So it's not really a security issue. Looks like it's due to the sponsorship or licensing...

For some people its an imaginary security issue. In past similar threads security is one reason that is cited for doing it. But nobody can actually explain how it would help.

I remember someone saying that obscuring the logo dissuaded people from chatting up the photographer while he was trying to get some work done: "Oh hey, I have a Canon too! Which one is that?!" I guess the hope is that an obscured logo sends the message that this photographer is not "open" about his gear, so don't bother asking.

Kinda makes me think about people who de-badge cars. IMO it always made them look ghetto as whenever a car is in an accident and rear parts are replaced the new pieces come with no badges which means, this car has been damaged. Any camera that has been cosmetically altered looks damaged to me.

tommykjensen wrote in post #14479002
A photographer I know painted, yes painted the logo black. He did this to avoid reflections when shooting through windows or reflective surfaces etc..... Yeah go figure.

This is a real issue to some so I wouldn't be so quick to scoff at it...

Go shoot through an aircraft window wearing white and with that big silver logo on top. Now do it wearing a dark color and the logo covered.

Worse yet, wear a dark color without covering the logo and you'll find you've done a masterful job of highlighting the logo. Ask me how I know...

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #14479176
This is a real issue to some so I wouldn't be so quick to scoff at it...

Go shoot through an aircraft window wearing white and with that big silver logo on top. Now do it wearing a dark color and the logo covered.

Worse yet, wear a dark color without covering the logo and you'll find you've done a masterful job of highlighting the logo. Ask me how I know...

Hehe I do understand the issue of reflections its the painting I am puzzled about. Simple tape solves the issue just as good

ben_r_ wrote in post #14479158
Kinda makes me think about people who de-badge cars. IMO it always made them look ghetto as whenever a car is in an accident and rear parts are replaced the new pieces come with no badges which means, this car has been damaged. Any camera that has been cosmetically altered looks damaged to me.

I actually think that cars with engine info in lettering on the back look cluttered. When you remove the letters on a car, you have only smooth paint below. It's different than taping or painting over a logo on a camera, which leaves either the edges of the tape or the indentation of the logo showing. That does definitely cheapen the look of the camera, but it's only an issue if you have clients who might look down their nose at you if you show up with a camera that looks "damaged."

Well, so far the only useful thing sounds like - preventing reflections. Other than that, it looks really useless

ben_r_ wrote in post #14479158
Kinda makes me think about people who de-badge cars.

Over here the favourite thing is to remove the engine badge, particularly if it is a small 4 or 6 cylinder - they don't like people to know they don't have a big stonking V8 under the hood haha. The givaway comes as soon as they start it and it farts instead of growls

from what i hear from street photographers is that it helps them stay more low key. i guess the white lettering may stand out more or it might catch people's attention more quickly. i personally like doing it because i like to have an all black camera haha.