Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

telephoto lens at a baseball game not allowed?

in my opinion if you are a professional with press passes and you're getting paid to take the pictures why are you so threatened by an amateur bringing in a nice telephoto lens? you already get great seats to get shots and have sick glass so whats the worry? and honesly my 70-200mm from the second section behind home plate doesn't get me close enough for a super stunning shot but i like to use it to get closer than a 18-55mm and all.
 
plus how many people outside of the professional photographers carry 500mm glass to the game
 
this thread reminds me...

royals.jpg



...I took this back in June with my 100-400 L - I'd better enjoy my RIGHT to take photographs while I can, because this idiocy will no doubt envelope Kauffman Stadium eventually, even though the bloody thing is owned by the county.
 
valdore said:
...I took this back in June with my 100-400 L - I'd better enjoy my RIGHT to take photographs while I can, because this idiocy will no doubt envelope Kauffman Stadium eventually, even though the bloody thing is owned by the county.
Click to expand...

Most years I've had followed up your photo with a crack about the Royals - but this year, with me being from Seattle and all... :p
 
taylorwilsdon said:
(Seattle) Mariners let you take big lenses. They didn't even bat an eye when I used to take my 70-200 L, with the hood on.
Click to expand...

http://seattle.mariners.mlb.com/sea/ballpark/sea_ballpark_guide.jsp

Cameras and Camcorders
Personal photography and video are permitted in the ballpark; however, videotaping any game action is prohibited. Photographic support tools (such as tripods, professional lenses - 200 MM & larger, etc.) are not permitted in the ballpark.
Click to expand...
 
Better then Shea

Are cameras/recording devices permitted?

Small still or digital still cameras are permitted in Shea Stadium. Video cameras are not permitted due to security guidelines.
Click to expand...

I've used a DSLR with a 300mm prime lens on a few occasions in Shea without ushers or security batting an eye -- policy is one thing, whether or not it's enforced is another.

I'm sure a lot of it has to do with where you are sitting -- the times that I've taken big equipment in, I've been in very expensive seats (but free to me! a friend from college has a cousin who plays for another team, so I get to sit in the family seats behind home plate once or twice a season)

The main thing is generally getting the gear into the door. I open up my bag at Shea and say "It's just still, no video" and am invariably waved on through. This has worked with both by DSLR and my rangefinder on different occasions.

Yankee stadium is another matter entirely -- the last time I was there, I managed to get my camera in with some protest, but my almost-empty laptop bag had to be checked at the bowling alley across the street. Was in the bleachers and nobody bothered me about using the long 300mm lens though.

Nice to see the Mariners actually setting a focal length limit. I ran into that at a Sixers playoff game this year -- the usher told me I couldn't use a 50-135mm zoom, but had no problems with an old 200mm prime. Go figure.
 
In Boston, the policy varies according to the venue.

For baseball in Fenway Park, you can bring any lens in as long as it does not interfere with other spectators. However, it is hard not to interfere with a large lens such as a Canon 100-400mm.

With the Celtics in TD North Garden, a lens longer than a credit card is not allowed. So I brought my 100mm lens which is sharper and just as fast as my 70-200mm lens. Obviously, appearances count more than quality.

You just have to check the website ahead of time.
 
valdore said:
I'd better enjoy my RIGHT to take photographs while I can, because this idiocy will no doubt envelope Kauffman Stadium eventually, even though the bloody thing is owned by the county.
Click to expand...
I don't think it would be very smart for the Royals to do anything that may result in further lowering their attendance by frustrating their fans ;)

Sorry, had to...

Anyways, Cubs, Brewers and Twins games all get too rowdy for me to bring a DSLR into, I usually stick with the P&S.
 
jpfisher said:
Yankee stadium is another matter entirely -- the last time I was there, I managed to get my camera in with some protest, but my almost-empty laptop bag had to be checked at the bowling alley across the street. Was in the bleachers and nobody bothered me about using the long 300mm lens though.
Click to expand...


I just checked the Yankees website ... no restrictions listed on Still cameras - just no video, plus of course, "no backpacks", etc.

Here's the URL link for the Yankees (take a hardcopy with you next time).


FWIW, I do tend to think that any Stadium that was built with public funds that has photography restrictions merits a call to your local politician... reminding them of the fact that Public Funds were involved, and that the restriction isn't due to security.


-hh
 
This is reminding me of the time I tried to take my film SLR and 70-210mm lens into the Showbox. I was going to see Le Tigre iirc and the security wouldn't allow my camera due to the bands request or something like that.

I bet that the band really does not mind their fans using such equipment. I still wonder if that was the truth or they just made it up.

And @ The Gorge Amphitheater security would not allow such unopened drinks like Gatorade.
 
how long have people been having trouble with this? this is the first time i've had anyone say anything to me.
 
This is normal across all major sporting events. Many places would prefer not to allow any, its easier on the security guards. PGA Tour doesn't allow cameras on the competitive days only on Pro-Ams. One the issue is to allow every one at the game to have a good time and not be bothered by others trying to take pictures and getting in the way of views of others.
 
but at the same time several of the venues that are used are public and banning things like cameras seems like authorities are over stepping their bounds
 
Print the rules and take them with you

I agree with whoever suggested to print out the stadium rules from their website and take them with you. This is the best way to prevent surprises at the gate.

I've had no trouble taking a Sigma 70-300 into Shea Stadium.

It seems pretty clear to me that the equipment rules exist to prevent us from taking high-quality (potentially marketable) photographs, in competition with paid pros or whatever. I doubt it's because big lenses annoy other spectators. There are plenty of ways to annoy or be annoyed without camera gear. There are some stadiums where they will even provide a large support post in front of your seat to obstruct your view at no extra charge. (Hi, Boston!)

Andrew
 
apearlman said:
I agree with whoever suggested to print out the stadium rules from their website and take them with you. This is the best way to prevent surprises at the gate.

I've had no trouble taking a Sigma 70-300 into Shea Stadium.

It seems pretty clear to me that the equipment rules exist to prevent us from taking high-quality (potentially marketable) photographs, in competition with paid pros or whatever. I doubt it's because big lenses annoy other spectators. There are plenty of ways to annoy or be annoyed without camera gear. There are some stadiums where they will even provide a large support post in front of your seat to obstruct your view at no extra charge. (Hi, Boston!)

Andrew
Click to expand...

like i said before. the vendors yelling constantly, and yes i understand it's "a part of the game", are as distracting if not more than someone with a large lens snapping photos
 
JohnNotBeatle said:
Last time I checked, the ballpark is a private venue, the exhibition is presented by private entities, and just as with any other property, the rights are in the property owner's hands here. Let's not confuse private with public, please.
Click to expand...

Exactly. According to US law, the right to take picture or not on PRIVATE property lies solely with the property owner. If they won't allow you to take pictures, whether the reason is valid or not, you'll just have to accept it.
I've had a run in with church officials my first wedding shoot where they said I could only shoot from the back of the church, no flash. After 5 different weddings at the same church, they eased up restrictions on me, since I respected their rules. On the 6th wedding I shot there, the minister allowed me to roam around the church (still no flash), so long as I wasn't a distraction.
The bottom line is your actions as a photograph reflects on other photographers. Most of these restrictions pop up because someone abused the privilege earlier, ruining it for the rest of us.
 
Mousse said:
Exactly. According to US law, the right to take picture or not on PRIVATE property lies solely with the property owner. If they won't allow you to take pictures, whether the reason is valid or not, you'll just have to accept it.
I've had a run in with church officials my first wedding shoot where they said I could only shoot from the back of the church, no flash. After 5 different weddings at the same church, they eased up restrictions on me, since I respected their rules. On the 6th wedding I shot there, the minister allowed me to roam around the church (still no flash), so long as I wasn't a distraction.
The bottom line is your actions as a photograph reflects on other photographers. Most of these restrictions pop up because someone abused the privilege earlier, ruining it for the rest of us.
Click to expand...

of course it always goes to capital punishment not all photographers break the rules or whatever. either way it is true that private venues reserve the right to allow or not allow pictures to be taken but in venues that are publicly funded this ruling is something you could contest.

bummer on the wedding that makes things a lot harder. i have only done one wedding but the church was open to anything that the bride and groom would allow so it came down to how much the bride and groom minded me moving around to get shots.
 
I went to my first professional basketball today and experienced this problem today. I was unaware of the prohibition of telephoto lenses so i just did what the woman at the NIA said and gave her my lens (55-250). She did quite a thorough search of my bag and took all of my equipment out. I really don't know what the problem is? i am still 15 years of age, i don't think that i have the ability to sell my pictures. Its stupid really.I ended up having to just take pictures with my 18-55. However I still got some good shots, so I'm not to bothered. The think that annoyed me though is when I got home I looked up the rules about the issue, I learned that that the lens has to be less then 5", but infact mine is 4"3. They didn't even check. Next time I go to a game I will defiantly challenge them about it!
 
Fuzzy14 said:
if I were a professional photographer and I or my agency had paid good dollar for a press pass for the rights to publish and sell photographs of a sport (BTW this happens in golf too), I would be pretty miffed if an 'amateur' paying standard gate prices wandered in with equipment nearly as good as mine and started taking pics. In fact I might even complain to somebody and get them to crack down on what equipment folk could bring to the game. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Just to clarify this point, press and media do not pay anything for the ability to cover MLB games. Approved newspapers, TV stations, wire services, etc. are granted credentials free of charge with certain restrictions.

For example local TV are only allowed to film before and after the game and may not capture game action. They have to pull highlights from the network feed which also carries certain restrictions.

On the still side, you generally can't license images to anyone other than the publication listed on your credential. There is also only one agency allowed to license images for commercial purposes (billboards, advertisements, products etc.) I'm pretty sure Getty still has that contract.

The only people who pay money are networks who broadcast the games, ie: "Rights Holders" such as ESPN, FSN, etc.

.
 
Last edited:
rweakins said:
Last Sunday I went to an Atlanta Braves game and was told at the gate my canon 70-200mm f4L lens wasn't allowed because it was longer than 5"?!?! They allowed it in that time but said from now on no lenses of 5" or longer will be allowed in. I thought was somewhat ridiculous. Do you think this is a ploy to force customers to purchase pictures or more of a security risk?
Click to expand...

Pretty much so you can't sell the property of the MLB...
 
Flash SWT said:
Just to clarify this point, press and media do not pay anything for the ability to cover MLB games. Approved newspapers, TV stations, wire services, etc. are granted credentials free of charge with certain restrictions.[/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Thanks, wasn't aware it was free. Rights-holders normally means they've paid to get a number of people within the ropes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back