Disneyland is "banning" professional cameras

[Kiki]

WDW hasn't gotten the memo yet I don't think....probably also because you don't have hundreds of paps in the area, esp. with Posh taking her kids on a regular basis.

But 200/2 from his neck? Gawsh. (Plus the fact 200 is much too short for DAK)

Like I said, I was guessing at the exact lens, but the thing was HUGE. The 200 only weighs 6 lbs., so it's not impossible, but would make for a very strenuous days. It could have been something else, but whatever it was, it was very, very, very large, and I wouldn't want to lug it around all day.

 

[Roger]

Nikon's weighs basically the same amount. I shot with it for one hour a few weeks back- I never hung it from my neck, and even hand holding it for that long was enough!

(granted, it is a sweet lens, and has it's use)

 

[mPower]

Did you try the 200-400/f4 Roger? Talk about a beast to hand hold! I got to try it out at an air show here in Indy. Between that and the 300/2.8 I think I can safely blow several thousand dollars on neat toys!

 

[Craig]

I wouldn't worry about "banning" cameras too much. If you read that entire list it mostly just points out stuff that is disruptive to other guests. I wouldnt want to be in a line with a kid with a bicycle or another guest with a giant cooler.

I have a feeling that disney "has" to have something written down so that they can refer to it in a legal manner. They do not want a documentary crew or movie crew or televison station in there causing a disruption for other guests.

Also, dont forget that Disney is mired in "middle management" at all different levels of experience both in Disney and in the real world. Current rules being followed can be changed on the whim of a new manager looking to leave their mark or show their authority.

Also, Dina and I got turned away by a bag checker because they did not like our cans of seltzer water. Now, we have been carrying in our own cans of seltzer water for MANY trips over many years and over countless bag checks. I did not argue with the guard.
I got out of line and went to another line and had no problem, and no problem since.

 

[Roger]

Did you try the 200-400/f4 Roger? Talk about a beast to hand hold! I got to try it out at an air show here in Indy. Between that and the 300/2.8 I think I can safely blow several thousand dollars on neat toys!

No, the 200/2 was the largest lens they had for portrait photography on that day....

 

[WillCAD]

This is being discussed on a few other boards the last few days, too.

The rumor is that the rule was put into place - or is being newly enforced - after the paparazzi harassed Lindsay Lohan in the parks recently.

Another part of the rumor is that the DLR guards are applying the rule to lenses over 6" in length. It doesn't specify if that's extended or retracted length.

Being an ameteur who only takes pics for my own amusement, I would be extrememly put out if someone tried to stop me from taking my 300D and Sigma 18-125 into any park. I'm not a pro, and it's not a pro camera - but I am constantly surprised at how many people look at it and get that overly impressed look on their faces, as if I'm carrying a $40K Hassleblad rig. My camera harness makes it look even less consumer and more pro. If I wore a vest in the parks along with it, I'd probably get stopped at the WDW gates as a "suspected pro photographer" too!

To me it's all a load of hogwash, anyway. A skilled pro could get excellent pics with a $200 P&S POS with 12x optical zoom, and a cheap $20 tripod that fits in a kids backpack. That ain't me, of course, but still...

 

[Roger]

Another part of the rumor is that the DLR guards are applying the rule to lenses over 6" in length. It doesn't specify if that's extended or retracted length.

I saw one my old acquaintances make a post that was linked on Tim's Twitter feed mention the same thing tonight. And they are hassling anyone with an SLR and banning over 6"....

 

[zackiedawg]

Hmmm...I see a new niche for Sony stickers! Put one on your Canon or Nikon...everyone knows Sony makes DSLRs, but noone thinks of them as 'professional'. You could walk in with a huge, tripod-mounted white lens and full frame camera with motor drive, and if they try to stop you...just point to the badge and declare "comeon...it's a Sony for Pete's sake!" and they'd let you right in!

Until then, us Sony DSLR guys will finally have a leg up on the Big Two manufacturers - access to Disneyland without getting hassled or stopped!

 

[Dan]

I do consider this an issue. Overly vague rules that can forbid a great deal more than they need to forbid so that they (or more to the point the guards) can use their own judgement are just never a good idea. There's always that one guard who's a jerk who decides to exert his or her power by cracking down on something insignificant. I once had a guard at WDW lecture me about using a smaller backpack because my bag took too long to check.

I SOOOO wanted to respond with commentary to the effect that the entire bag check procedure was only to create the impression of security, that in every time I've been through the check has never been thorough enough to keep me from smuggling any number of things through in various hidden areas if I so wished, not to mention the fact that all I have to do is stick something in my pocket and it becomes out of bounds to the entire procedure and if I wanted I could smuggle a veritable arsenal in under a loose fitting jacket and they wouldn't say boo. But I didn't. Heavens no, we can't comment that the emperor has no clothes, that's unpatriotic..


I'm sorry, what was I saying? Oh yes, no "professional" cameras. I am saddened to see this restriction show up there. I've gotten used to see it as standard legalese on the fine print for getting concert tickets, there's plenty of stories in the live music world of DSLRs getting blocked while people with P&S cameras stroll on through. I've even seen a more clear description that defines professional as meaning a camera with a detachable lens.

I get the point that overall the rule seems to be going unenforced, but like I said.. if it isn't needed then don't have it on the books. There's nothing preventing them from having a rule referring to behavior that detracts from the enjoyment of other guests, in fact I'm sure they already have it and it could easily be applied to someone walking around the park smacking people on the head with a 600mm F4. But a blanket rule giving their private police force carte blanche authority to turn down basically any camera that they (presumably not well educated on the subject of commerical photography) think looks professional does not please me.

 

[WillCAD]

Dan, even your vent brings up a good point - I typically go into the parks with only one lens, and if I wanted, I could easily fit my camera body in one pocket and lens in the other pocket of a typical pair of cargo pants, and stroll right on in through the no-bags entrance.