Peekayoh Loc: UK

The banning of ILC cameras at events is just another way of maximising revenues.

The commercialisation of sport is pretty universal and at London 2012 the Games Sponsors have insisted on an advertising exclusion zone around the Olympic park. Other than their own, all advertising has to be removed or covered up.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I have no idea. I've watched so much that it's all a blur. I record it and then FF through the boring parts - just like my life. :D

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Unbelievable! :thumbdown:

hj Loc: Florida

Looks like a great bridge camera with up to 1000mm range is becoming more of a necessity for these kinds of venue.

hj Loc: Florida

[quote=DavidT]

Looks like a great bridge camera with up to 1000mm range is becoming more of a necessity for these kinds of venue.

Emjem Loc: Perth australia

Sorry, I misread. I thought it was your daughter

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I wish!

GPappy Loc: Finally decided to plop down, Clover, S.C.

As usual, this shows the mentality of the people making the rules. How many times have you wondered "what were they thinking?" Once again the ones with the most influence, and the least knowledge , hold the controls.

TchrBill Loc: Houston, TX

I don't think they really mean too "large" for spectator seating. I think they mean too capable of producing high quality close-up images. Obviously, a photo taken with a 35mm lens, cropped down to focus on one athlete would not be of a very high quality. A photo taken with a zoomed out p&s would also not be of very high quality. Considering the number of people that have DSLRs now, even if they never take them off “Auto”, you can imagine how many of them would be in the hands of spectators. Just by sheer luck (and numbers) someone would end up getting a shot of that “perfect” expression at the “perfect” moment that would make their photo more marketable than the pros covering the event. Also, the Olympic Committee would not have any control over the content of the photos being taken and something may be captured that they wouldn’t want released. Long story short, I guess I can understand the rational for the rules. What chaps my a$$ is the reason they give, “too large for spectator seating”? When they don’t want to give the real reason they just make something up and think we are stupid enough to believe it.

rebride

It was Missy Franklin's parents. NBC moved them from up in the rafters to much closer for the second night. NBC wanted a better shot of their reactions.

DavidT Loc: Maryland

I fully agree. How can a 35mm focal length lens be okay, but a 40mm lens is too long? I can understand it if the rule was to limit the size (super telephoto lens with a tripod), but limiting the size to a 35mm lens makes no sense.

TomballLegend Loc: Tomball, Texas

Didn't have to travell further than my easy chair and shoot off the HDflatscreen.

eskiles Loc: Palmer Alaska

I went to a tennis match in montreal. Canon was one of the sponsors, I had a Rebel XTi with a 70/300 zoom black lense. The guy next to me had a Canon XTi with a white lense he was almost not allowed into the match because he had a " professional lense" He threatened to contact Canon and suggest they not sponsor the match next year. They let him in. We have some great pictures. It is getting stupid. They charge a lot to get into the games and want to limit your cameras. The point and shoots rely on their flash. The DLR can be used in low light and no flash. You would think they would like their logos and players plastered in as many photos as possible.

AKeane

Rules like this remind me never to go to an Olympics again. I like to spend my money where I can use my camera, especially Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia. There you can take photographs virtually everywhere. The only place they told me I couldn't take a picture was on a stairway. Nearly everywhere else it was allowed.

Allan

eskiles Loc: Palmer Alaska

The weight lifter looks a little squashed, maybe too much weight!! :lol: