New Security Rules - In Particular Cameras
I was on Facebook and there was a link from mgoblue about some of the new security rules. One of them is that small cameras are permitted as long as they don't have detachable lenses. Is there something special about cameras with detachable lenses that I don't know about? I will admit that if I take my 500mm lens, it might be distracting to people around me but my 300mm lens is pretty small. What's even funnier is that I can get a small camera without a detachable lens that gives me an equivalent to my big lens. Are they afraid that someone may be selling pictures from the game and they aren't getting a taste of that money? There are two holes ot that theory...trademark infringement and the official pictures are far nicer than anything from the stands.
anyways, I guess this means that if I do go, I'll have to borrow my former non-SLR camera from my mom.
September 2nd, 2011 at 9:48 AM ^
My guess is most likely this is the way to remove any ambiguity around lens size people can bring in. Like you say, some detachable lenses can get large.
September 2nd, 2011 at 9:54 AM ^
I think they just don't want big honking lenses that can block other people's views, so they just say "no detachable lenses" because they are not going to have the volunteer staff play a guessing game about size.
That said, for the same reason, I think you can easily get away with a small, detachable lens.
September 2nd, 2011 at 9:56 AM ^
I can live with that answer and I can appreciate that answer as I realize my 500mm lens is probably not the best for people around me. The 300mm lens isn't too bad and doesn't stick out too far. So if I do end up going to a game, I'll try that.
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:31 AM ^
I wouldn't do that early in the season. They're more likely to enforce new rules to the letter at first. They'll probably use more discretion later and you'll be able to ask about it here too.
September 2nd, 2011 at 6:53 PM ^
" volunteer staff "
Have not been volunteers for some time now, 4-5 years. We're employees and therefore have to abide by dress codes, attend mandatory training etc.
The lens rule is new this year IIRC. Obviously some here aren't buying it, but it is a security issue IMO. If they won't let any bags, food, umbrellas, or water in, why let any other large object in?
And yes of course the rule is subject to interpretation. Being an amateur photographer myself I immediately realized that many "small" cameras have the ability to swap lenses.
Having said that, keep the big, $2000, 4 pound telephoto lens at home, make do with your $400 50-250mm and you probably won't get bothered.
Unless my boss tells me otherwise :)
September 2nd, 2011 at 4:16 PM ^
i love it
September 2nd, 2011 at 9:51 AM ^
just to see what happens.
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:00 AM ^
And ride up on this...
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:04 AM ^
Don't forget the handlebar mustache
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:17 AM ^
chap!
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:55 AM ^
Yes, quite.
September 2nd, 2011 at 4:35 PM ^
It just says, "Care to partake in some impromptu fistacuffs?"
September 2nd, 2011 at 12:58 PM ^
Bully!
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:11 AM ^
What a joke. There is no plausible argument that a large camera lens is a security risk. As for view, someone who is 6-6 and 320 pounds and wearing a beret-style Go Blue hat is going to obstruct a lot more view than someone of average proportions with a large camera lens. Whenever the university makes a "security" decision, it always seems to be about the money. I'm guessing he doesn't want people to get quality pictures without paying some kind of premium.
"Secure" rental lenses: coming to a kisok near you...
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:24 AM ^
If it is the money they are worried about, I don't understand what they are worried about. I mean if I go sell my pictures from last year, I would be in violation of trademarks and they could go after me for that. As much as I like the pictures I took last year, I think the pictures that people get from the sidelines are much much better. But whatever....I've got a backup option but I don't really like that camera as much. Or I go the smaller lens route and see what happens. If they say no, they say no....
September 2nd, 2011 at 1:26 PM ^
Maybe we have the jackass with an oversized lens full of vodka to blame for this......
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:12 AM ^
dunno crafty terrorist could build a gun into a lens :P
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:44 AM ^
Or just sneak in guns dressed as part of the color guard circa MSU game '10.
September 2nd, 2011 at 1:13 PM ^
M-Wolverine.
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:17 AM ^
obviously its so that you cant bring a giant lens, with a concealed weapon inside /s
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:52 AM ^
everyone with a pullover sweatshirt now needs to pull it up to gain admittance (zipper jacketed folks only need to unzip)
September 2nd, 2011 at 12:51 PM ^
It's not the size of the lens, it's the ability to put something inside. A security issue. Same reason they banned water bottles coming into the stadium. Nothing wrong with heightened security IMHO.
September 2nd, 2011 at 1:15 PM ^
It's not the size of the lens, it's the ability to put something inside.
September 2nd, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^
how hard is it to get a pint into the big house?
September 2nd, 2011 at 1:02 PM ^
Not unpossible...
September 2nd, 2011 at 1:18 PM ^
Four or five hip flasks ought to do it. Wear cargo pants.
September 2nd, 2011 at 1:20 PM ^
pipe bomb into some lenses.
September 2nd, 2011 at 2:04 PM ^
September 2nd, 2011 at 2:06 PM ^
I never noticed it before. If it's been there before, then I guess I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. I'm a little sensitive after getting harassed at Ford Field during one of the recent seasons that I don't remember the Lions record.
September 2nd, 2011 at 2:38 PM ^
I did the same with my 250mm lens last year. Wore cargo shorts and put the lens in one of the bigger pockets. No one said anything, from ticket takers to security to ushers to fans. The camera body was in plain sight hanging from a big neckstrap with "Canon" all over it.
September 2nd, 2011 at 2:40 PM ^
"...are you just happy to see me?"
September 26th, 2011 at 11:58 PM ^
I put them in the pockets of my athletic shorts and wear sweats over them. I have the body around my neck with only the cap and no lens and they let it through.
Of course, for the Western game, I had a 55-250mm lens attached.
"Is that lens detatchable?"
"Uh, no..."
"Okay, go ahead"
*shrug*
September 2nd, 2011 at 5:06 PM ^
September 8th, 2011 at 12:04 AM ^
I just purchased a 50-250mm lens for my Canon Rebel camera in hopes of bringing it to my first game at the Big House. What do you think the chances are that they let me in with it? I could always bring my Sigma lens that's way smaller, but the 50-250mm lens is not big at all.
What's my best option? I was really hoping to take some good quality pictures to remember my first game at the Big House. It's a pretty huge deal for me, as I'm sure everyone else's first game was a huge deal for them.
September 8th, 2011 at 12:53 AM ^
For comparison's sake: I believe I was sitting at about the same level in the stadium:
300 mm
http://michiganexposures.blogspot.com/2010/11/wisconsin-vs-michigan-game.html
500 mm
http://michiganexposures.blogspot.com/2010/09/u-conn-vs-michigan-game.html
September 8th, 2011 at 1:29 AM ^
tbh... unless you're lugging around a 300 mm f2.8, taking pictures from the stands isn't really worth it. Now.. taking pictures of the stadium with a wideangle lens is a different story... and those lenses are small enough that they shouldn't create any issues.
September 27th, 2011 at 12:07 AM ^
Someone we sit with had his DSLR with him on Saturday and got rather rudely turned away from the gate as a result. Luckily our car wasn't too far away, so he could go stash it for the game, but it was still a hassle. And completely stupid.
Michigan Stadium doesn't really need to be a police state. Every year it's something new.