For security reasons, you can only bring the following items inside the venues: walking aids, portable oxygen cylinder for medical use, flask up to 75cl, service dogs, flags of countries and territories partecipating in the Games (without rigid flagpoles), mobility aids for people with reduced mobility, bags with a maximum capacity of 35litres, small folding umbrella, camera lenses smaller than 20cm, medication with medical prescription
rscheffler wrote:
What I can bring inside the Venue?
For security reasons, you can only bring the following items inside the venues: walking aids, portable oxygen cylinder for medical use, flask up to 75cl, service dogs, flags of countries and territories partecipating in the Games (without rigid flagpoles), mobility aids for people with reduced mobility, bags with a maximum capacity of 35litres, small folding umbrella, camera lenses smaller than 20cm, medication with medical prescription
When mounted on the camera is roughly 20cm from the mount without the lens cap. Btw they never measure it, but I take a measuring tape just in case.
So far they never asked me to measure it neither in Paris (horses and beach volley) nor in Bormio (alpine ski) and Milano (speedskating), they are not sending you back for 3-5mm... if you would go in with a 25cm lens probably they will not accept.
There are a few around with the 100-500, EF 100-400 plus adapter and so on.
The beauty of the Olympics is that the rule is clear so you can take your camera and is great. Not like some other events that is always a discussion.
action99 wrote:
The beauty of the Olympics is that the rule is clear so you can take your camera and is great. Not like some other events that is always a discussion.
Nice. Much better than the "no professional cameras" BS which could include a Rebel with a kit lens or a Fuji XE with a pancake lens, depending on which security clown you get. Then there's the focal length limits which make me want to carry a Micro 4/3 kit to outsmart them.
Mike_5D wrote:
Nice. Much better than the "no professional cameras" BS which could include a Rebel with a kit lens or a Fuji XE with a pancake lens, depending on which security clown you get. Then there's the focal length limits which make me want to carry a Micro 4/3 kit to outsmart them.
It's definitely a situation where a smaller, higher pixel density sensor would help maximize reach! Most spectator positions will be such that you're not going to get much subject/background separation anyway, so the whole 'blur out the background' with fast FF lenses will have much less relevance. IMO as a spectator at this kind of international sporting event, there's so much more to potentially photograph than just the athletes competing. Would love to see more of that in addition to actual sports action.
AmbientMike wrote:
Letting people take photos is free publicity. Limiting cameras doesn't really make much sense imo
I agree. Things like selfies having a good time posted to social media. But the following are a couple reasons teams/sports leagues restrict cameras, or size of lenses:
- Control over image rights and uses. Their thinking is someone with 'pro' gear will use it to somehow make money off their events through unofficial channels and they won't get a cut or have control over how it is used. It's not just the team/leagues that care about this. Also the players' unions because commercial image licensing generally also requires permission of and payment to the individual athletes and/or their unions.
- The fan experience. If you've spent a couple hundred dollars or more for a ticket, would you enjoy it if someone sitting around you was swinging around a super-tele? Potentially banging the lens hood into your head? Often seating is tight and there isn't a lot of room for extra stuff like a big camera and lens, monopod, camera bag, etc. On this note, my local MLB team would allow accredited media to shoot from spectator areas, but only from standing room areas. Not in spectator seating.
Back in the 1988 Olympics here in Calgary, I was using my FD glass and they never blinked once with me bringing in the FD 400/F4.5. I never brought monopods, etc, just camera and lenses. No problem to seating areas of arenas or at the ski hill, ski jump, bobsleigh runs. Even the opening and closing ceremonies there was no issues. They would search the bag and send me through
rscheffler wrote:
I agree. Things like selfies having a good time posted to social media. But the following are a couple reasons teams/sports leagues restrict cameras, or size of lenses:
- Control over image rights and uses. Their thinking is someone with 'pro' gear will use it to somehow make money off their events through unofficial channels and they won't get a cut or have control over how it is used. It's not just the team/leagues that care about this. Also the players' unions because commercial image licensing generally also requires permission of and payment to the individual athletes and/or their unions.
- The fan experience. If you've spent a couple hundred dollars or more for a ticket, would you enjoy it if someone sitting around you was swinging around a super-tele? Potentially banging the lens hood into your head? Often seating is tight and there isn't a lot of room for extra stuff like a big camera and lens, monopod, camera bag, etc. On this note, my local MLB team would allow accredited media to shoot from spectator areas, but only from standing room areas. Not in spectator seating. ...Show more →
I understand the safety and spectator comfort concerns, but the first part is just greed. They make millions upon millions of dollars but some shmuck possibly making a couple of bucks on the side is intolerable to them. That's the attitude that's eventually going to get the rich eaten.
rscheffler wrote:
I agree. Things like selfies having a good time posted to social media. But the following are a couple reasons teams/sports leagues restrict cameras, or size of lenses:
- Control over image rights and uses. Their thinking is someone with 'pro' gear will use it to somehow make money off their events through unofficial channels and they won't get a cut or have control over how it is used. It's not just the team/leagues that care about this. Also the players' unions because commercial image licensing generally also requires permission of and payment to the individual athletes and/or their unions.
- The fan experience. If you've spent a couple hundred dollars or more for a ticket, would you enjoy it if someone sitting around you was swinging around a super-tele? Potentially banging the lens hood into your head? Often seating is tight and there isn't a lot of room for extra stuff like a big camera and lens, monopod, camera bag, etc. On this note, my local MLB team would allow accredited media to shoot from spectator areas, but only from standing room areas. Not in spectator seating. ...Show more →
That's pretty much what I'd guess, on the control, but I really think it's misguided. People posting photos is free marketing, and the few that actually made money on it probably don't amount to much and would be easy to shut down if it was a real problem
I took nikkor 180/2.8 to a Dallas Mavericks game years ago, really not intrusive in that regard imo, similar to the Olympics letting you use lenses up 20cm (and probably not measuring if there's no issues.) So I like that they're letting in the more mid range stuff, size wise
rscheffler wrote:
I agree. Things like selfies having a good time posted to social media. But the following are a couple reasons teams/sports leagues restrict cameras, or size of lenses:
- Control over image rights and uses. Their thinking is someone with 'pro' gear will use it to somehow make money off their events through unofficial channels and they won't get a cut or have control over how it is used. It's not just the team/leagues that care about this. Also the players' unions because commercial image licensing generally also requires permission of and payment to the individual athletes and/or their unions.
- The fan experience. If you've spent a couple hundred dollars or more for a ticket, would you enjoy it if someone sitting around you was swinging around a super-tele? Potentially banging the lens hood into your head? Often seating is tight and there isn't a lot of room for extra stuff like a big camera and lens, monopod, camera bag, etc. On this note, my local MLB team would allow accredited media to shoot from spectator areas, but only from standing room areas. Not in spectator seating. ...Show more →
Indeed the 20cm I feel is a fair rule to avoid being there with a 600mm F4 and hitting heads or disturbing. Just 4m away from where I was seated there was a row just for the accredited photographers that had more space in front to avoid the issue.
At the ski event I was just 1m left from the photographers and there would have been no problem with a big prime tele but you need to come up with a rule for all events and locations so fair enough.
Before mirrorless I think it was good to forbid pro cameras as the shutter sound would be annoying, now you really go unnoticed and actually I disturb less than people having their phone full arm length above their head ;-) .
Again I find it great that they have now a clear rule that allow pro cameras and is the same for the last two Olympics.
IMO as a spectator at this kind of international sporting event, there's so much more to potentially photograph than just the athletes competing. Would love to see more of that in addition to actual sports action.
Are you referring more about the arena, spectators. etc or more about the city?
In regards of the City I'm not interested as I live a bit more than 1h drive from Milan and I don't particularly like it.
AmbientMike wrote:
Letting people take photos is free publicity. Limiting cameras doesn't really make much sense imo
There are multiple points of view to this issue.
In the past people used predominantly cameras with mechanical shutters and mirrors which produced sound that some spectators found distracting especially if fast frame rates are used. Today there are quiet or even silent mirrorless cameras (only a few models really photograph action well in silent operation, and spectators are not all that likely to have those models, accredited pros for sure will). Thus there is a bit less pressure from the other audience members towards not letting spectators take photos freely. However, if someone wields a big telephoto lens then it can obstruct the view of the people in the audience next to the person who is photographing, and so there is still some discomfort. If a spectator pays a lot for access to the Olympics, it's understandable that they would want the best view available.
I occasionally photograph sports as a spectator for keeping up my skills for action photography that I need for other subjects, and I always try to get a seat which is in such a position that my photography would produce minimal distraction to other spectators. However, if were to go to the Olympics, it would be difficult to ensure such a seat. I think the 20 cm lens length is a reasonable limitation on the part of the organizers. However, a lens like the 100-500mm will extend to close to 30 cm when zoomed to 500 mm, and while the organizers won't check for that, it might be that the intention of the organizers to ensure neighbouring spectators get unobstructed view, might not be fully realized. I'm not saying the OP should not have taken these, but it's interesting if the organizers know about the extending nature of the lens and let it through or if it was unintended. However, from the security personnel's point of view, they can't really be expected to check if a lens extends and measure it that way. It's just not very practical and the photographers would find it intrusive.
Of course, photos taken by spectators help bring the attention on the Olympics and sports, and the free publicity is probably helpful. As long as the other spectators are not bothered by the activity, all should be well. In addition to cameras, many spectators can have binoculars.
The OP's photos are very nice (I like the 2nd and 4th image, in particular) and it's surprising to me that such results could be obtained given the lens's maximum aperture. A good job definitely.
Mike_5D wrote:
I understand the safety and spectator comfort concerns, but the first part is just greed. They make millions upon millions of dollars but some shmuck possibly making a couple of bucks on the side is intolerable to them. That's the attitude that's eventually going to get the rich eaten.
Who make millions of dollars? In most cases the Olympics end up in the red for the cities that host them, i.e. costing more money than is made from the event (long-term). Stadiums and other venues are built for the event and in some cases end up not being used at all after the Olympics are over (the need was only temporary, and the costs excessive). Even when counting the income from tourism, the net return for investment is negative. Many highly experienced professional sports photographers also find it nowadays economically not possible to attend as the fees for freelancers and total costs exceed the income from the image sales, so many photographers who covered these events for decades quit and moved into other fields because it's not economically possible any more for them to make enough money to cover the costs and make a living these days. Washington Post just laid out their staff photographers and most of the sports department. So, who makes a lot of money?
The IOC is itself a non-profit organization which funds athlete development and in turn this can motivate the regular people to participate in sports (although common people's participation in physical exercise and the development of elite athletes are different things, I still think there is a motivational benefit that could lead to health benefits). I have no doubt that large media companies do make profits from Olympics coverage, but somehow the people who do the work, the cities, the photographers, the athletes, not so much. Still, if the Washington Post can't make a profit from having staff photographers or sports journalists, it tells something about the situation the media find themselves in.
