Just when you thought for a brief moment that stupidity is not infinitesimal after all, there will always be someone to prove you wrong: DSLRs banned (http://pulse.me/s/3M2n7)
Clever marketing, Leica!
Rob C
They might have granted exclusive coverage rights to a photography studio who demanded exclusivity?No.
every area is rigorously watched by CCTV.
Why on earth would you consider this discrimination?...
What do "high-quality sensors" or "high resolution" have to do with "jamming up the works"!?
Why on earth would you consider this discrimination? As if photographers are some protected class.
Just when you thought for a brief moment that stupidity is not infinitesimal after all, there will always be someone to prove you wrong: DSLRs banned (http://pulse.me/s/3M2n7)Funny, Iran has exactly the same limitations.
For an amusing follow-up see this (http://twitter.com/#!/JamesPRobertson/status/144346970352402432/photo/1)That makes at least as much sense as the original sign.
Discrimination against DSLRs vs. SLRs vs. rangefinders vs. a bunch of other acronyms (EVIL, CSC, etc.), which can equally easily have either a "high-quality sensor" or "high resolution" or both. Besides, the title is tongue-in-cheek.
But, since it makes perfect sense for you, what "high-quality sensors" or "high resolution" have to do with "jamming up the works"!?
Can an inanimate object really be discriminated against? ???
... but doesn't it occur to anyone that large cameras and tripods, especially tripods, can be a damned nuisance...
Rob, where did you find any mention of "large cameras" or "tripods" in the sign in question?
For an amusing follow-up see this (http://twitter.com/#!/JamesPRobertson/status/144346970352402432/photo/1)
Can an inanimate object really be discriminated against? ???I often discriminate against my PC, for example, when I kno purrfeckly wel how to spell awurd and it but the stoopid macvhine messes it all up. >:(
Yes, I know it's fashionable on this forum to attack any sign of authority or of restriction on photograhy, but doesn't it occur to anyone that large cameras and tripods, especially tripods, can be a damned nuisance in various instances, the confines of a tube station being one such. I assume we are talking about an Underground stop? I'm not terribly au fait with London, going there only when unavoidable.
If that was really the purpose of the sign, it's pointless. I'm sure there are already rules in the Tube by-laws against blocking exits and hindering flow of people. One doesn't need a camera to do that. And photographers who do that can be already told to move on according to existing rules.
From a dictionary:
"make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things"
I often discriminate against my PC, for example, when I kno purrfeckly wel how to spell awurd and it but the stoopid macvhine messes it all up. >:(Well.. I can see that. But if anyone really feels like getting annoyed visit Wat Rung Khun and you'll be greeted by this sign:
Also: It was obvious to me that the "improved" sign was a spoof, perhaps because that's just the way my own warped mind works.
Eric
Well damn.. guess so. Seems odd though.
So where's the problem?