Post the most ridiculous comments you've received with a big lens on!

Calzinger wrote in post #4925482
I'm pretty sure that they can't force you to donate to take pictures because you have "professional" equipment given the location you were shooting in. The only place I've seen such restrictions were at Yankee Stadium where they claimed that you couldn't use a lens with a focal length equivalent or greater than 200mm.

I'm glad to see that you did donate though. Whenever I take pictures of performers in Manhattan, I do my best to give 'em a buck.

Technically they can't force you to donate, however I'm assuming this was on private property, in which case they can tell you to stop taking pictures whenever they please and you have to comply (or be kicked out and threatened for trespassing) so it's good to cooperate whenever possible. (This is Canadian law anyway... not sure about other places)

MDJAK wrote in post #4845050
Does anyone here read anything on this thread? I ate lunch with the OP yesterday. I tried to stab him with my sharpened chopsticks for starting this completely useless thread.

me

I agree. Reading this thread is driving me insane

GBRandy wrote in post #4925463
With the 24-70 attached..." wow that lens is huge I bet you can see the moon" Uhm...I can see the moon without my lens...and this is a wide angle.
---------------
OK...not a stupid lens comment...but still appropriate:

Court side at a high school basketball game...with all my gear hanging around my neck and in my backpack....

a kid kind shouts in my direction...

Kid: " hey dude...are you a photographer?"

I look at him a bit confused.....

Kid: "You know...a photographer" hold hands by face and makes clicking motion with right index finger

I look back in acknowledgment and respond: "No, I am a fireman" and walk away.

Kid looks confused.....

Made my night.

That was great...wish I could use that line. But "No, I'm a Project Manager" just doesn't work as well. How about "No, I'm a Virgo". Nah it was a kid and he could have too much fun with that.

Calzinger wrote in post #4925482
I'm pretty sure that they can't force you to donate to take pictures because you have "professional" equipment given the location you were shooting in. The only place I've seen such restrictions were at Yankee Stadium where they claimed that you couldn't use a lens with a focal length equivalent or greater than 200mm.

I was told recently I couldn't use my 40D as the place only allowed 35mm cameras - and my lens quite clearly stated it was a 50mm lens. I obviously need to buy a 35mm lens, which would make my camera quite acceptable.

toyah wrote in post #4926443
I was told recently I couldn't use my 40D as the place only allowed 35mm cameras - and my lens quite clearly stated it was a 50mm lens. I obviously need to buy a 35mm lens, which would make my camera quite acceptable.

Howl!

What kind of place allows "only" 35mm cameras? What, they're worried that you'll haul in an 8x10 view camera?

toyah wrote in post #4926443
I was told recently I couldn't use my 40D as the place only allowed 35mm cameras - and my lens quite clearly stated it was a 50mm lens. I obviously need to buy a 35mm lens, which would make my camera quite acceptable.

I don't even understand how that makes sense, whoever told you that clearly hadn't a clue what he or she was talking about. I'm sure you could've got your way in just by actually making sense.

But in all seriousness, I know these people are trying to do their job, and while I can't expect "joe photographer" to know as much as we do about cameras, I do expect them to understand the rules they're trying to enforce.

For example, like I had said, when I was at Yankee Stadium, I brought a 70-200 on a crop camera and as I was leaving, the guy said that I wasn't allowed to have that kind of camera. Apparently it was "too professional". I don't even want to get into the argument about the qualification of "professional" equipment. However, before I went, I checked the website and they had clearly specified that you're not allowed to use a lens with a focal length greater than 200mm. I was well within the limit. I didn't expect the security guard to understand that the camera's crop factor was independent of the lens's physical focal length. As a part of security, I would expect him to actually understand what I could potentially be doing wrong instead of making up some loose bull**** about me carrying something that's "too professional". I don't even understand how that qualification can be made.

I can accept the lack of knowledge, but I can't accept the ignorance to that knowledge.

By the sounds of some of the comments that people have heard, you'd think that people had never seen a SLR camera and "basic" lens before. I mean the 24-70, 17-40, or even 70-200 are NOT "BIG" lenses. Esp the 24-70, or 17-40 etc. Yet I've read numerous posts in this thread where people have received comments about how "big" their lens is etc.

The 300mm f2.8, and esp the 400mm f2.8, 500mm f4, and 600mm f4 ARE BIG lenses. Those ones deserve the "OMG what a HUGE lens!" comments. NOT "normal" size lenses. People need to get out more, or at least go to a camera store, or read a photography magazine once in a while.

Calzinger wrote in post #4926517
I don't even understand how that makes sense, whoever told you that clearly hadn't a clue what he or she was talking about. I'm sure you could've got your way in just by actually making sense.

But in all seriousness, I know these people are trying to do their job, and while I can't expect "joe photographer" to know as much as we do about cameras, I do expect them to understand the rules they're trying to enforce.

For example, like I had said, when I was at Yankee Stadium, I brought a 70-200 on a crop camera and as I was leaving, the guy said that I wasn't allowed to have that kind of camera. Apparently it was "too professional". I don't even want to get into the argument about the qualification of "professional" equipment. However, before I went, I checked the website and they had clearly specified that you're not allowed to use a lens with a focal length greater than 200mm. I was well within the limit. I didn't expect the security guard to understand that the camera's crop factor was independent of the lens's physical focal length. As a part of security, I would expect him to actually understand what I could potentially be doing wrong instead of making up some loose bull**** about me carrying something that's "too professional". I don't even understand how that qualification can be made.

I can accept the lack of knowledge, but I can't accept the ignorance to that knowledge.

And what makes me think that they wouldn't have said anything IF you were shooting with my 70-300 DO because it is compact (well short when retracted) and BLACK.

Wayne

Canonswhitelensesrule wrote in post #4926599
By the sounds of some of the comments that people have heard, you'd think that people had never seen a SLR camera and "basic" lens before. I mean the 24-70, 17-40, or even 70-200 are NOT "BIG" lenses. Esp the 24-70, or 17-40 etc. Yet I've read numerous posts in this thread where people have received comments about how "big" their lens is etc.

The 300mm f2.8, and esp the 400mm f2.8, 500mm f4, and 600mm f4 ARE BIG lenses. Those ones deserve the "OMG what a HUGE lens!" comments. NOT "normal" size lenses. People need to get out more, or at least go to a camera store, or read a photography magazine once in a while.

Right...size is all relative. A 17-40L is gigantic compared to any P&S, which is what a majority of what joe photographer would be carrying. Of course a 300 2.8L is gigantic compared to a 17-40L. You can't expect everyone to be able to distinguish between a large prime and a short zoom when they probably don't even know what SLR stands for.

WMS wrote in post #4926765
And what makes me think that they wouldn't have said anything IF you were shooting with my 70-300 DO because it is compact (well short when retracted) and BLACK.

Wayne

When there are very explicit rules, security should be enforcing those rules as they are, not as some loose guidelines because they just don't understand their job. People can make whatever comments they want, I can't expect anything from them. But if someone is going to tell me to leave a stadium, it better because I actually did something wrong.

aLFaDaRK wrote in post #4925901
Technically they can't force you to donate, however I'm assuming this was on private property, in which case they can tell you to stop taking pictures whenever they please and you have to comply (or be kicked out and threatened for trespassing) so it's good to cooperate whenever possible. (This is Canadian law anyway... not sure about other places)

i was in our town mall, which is public? i took pictures of cars for the new car show, and nothing was said to me, but these people rescue animals and ask for donations to help feed and house the animals and so on. so i figured wtf, its $3, thats like 10 minutes of sitting on my cheeks listening to music at work for a bunch of photos of animals ill never see and some experience

Ridebmx wrote in post #4927056
i was in our town mall, which is public?

Nope, private property. They can ask you to leave or put away your camera if they wish while there.

I'm about 10 minutes from the Palisades Center Mall, and at some entrances they have a board with a list of rules, one of which clearly says that you aren't allowed to take any pictures or videos inside the mall. Of course how that rule is enforced is another story.

RE: my 70-200 2.8 IS on my 5D...
"a photographer I know just shot my truck with the most intense camera I've ever seen..."

Tonight at the YMCA Valentine Dance (yeah, they had it a day late) with my 20D+grip, 24-70L and Sigma 500 Super...

YMCA Person (security maybe): "Who are you with?"

Me: "My three daughters (pointing), over there"

Him: "Ok" and walks away.




As if I could possibly be "with" someone, photographically speaking. Made me smile...