Pixiq

Ok - so basically what you are saying is because Jim and I aren't posting views the same as yours and everyone else's; we are therefore hysterical and need to move on?

I do not like or respect the approach you or the author of the article has taken and I, for once, decided to get involved in the discussion. The responses to my posts which have not been abusive, personal or anything else have received responses which do not answer the larger issue at hand.

I have also been reading what else has been posted stemming from you posting your image on Twitter, Tim - and it has been a mixed bag. Yes, there have been lots of people doing the 'What if I take this camera instead??!!' but others have also looked at it from the viewpoint of the company and why they have a ban like this - but like me and Jim have said (which by the looks of it, you have chosen to ignore) we agree it's a silly ban.

Yes - this whole thing has pissed me off. But being called hysterical and telling essentially telling me to jog on because I am not 100% agreeing with you is amazing. You rose this ban up as an issue and it's been covered here and in other small media outlets as a consequence (aside from AP) - so as far as I'm concerned it's open for debate. I doubt the conversation here will develop any further and I've got better things to do with my time once I have posted this reply.

All I see are a lot of hobbyists complaining that they couldn't take their expensive toys with them into a place that doesn't allow said expensive toys and then getting huffy about it.

I have spoken to several of my colleagues who all agree the ban seems, on the face of it, stupid, but one raised an interesting point: if you want to go and take professional (read: saleable) photos or film down there, you have to pay for a permit. This costs money. If anyone on one of these tours took professional level equipment down with them and subsequently offered those pictures for sale, then all those people who paid the fee for official permission would rightly be outraged and even have the chance to sue for the return of the permit fee. The solution? A ban on professional level equipment.

I have to admit, this did not occur to me at the time and on the surface, it makes sense.

However, since a lot of dSLRs are not exactly what you would call professional level equipment, the ban only makes sense if you frame it in terms of the 'species' of equipment used.

Compact cameras are not considered professional; dSLRs are, therefore, a ban on dSLRs, whilst overly broad and exclusionary, can be seen by the company to cover their responsibilities to those who have paid for permits.

As for 'calming down', I'd suggest you reread this comment thread - both Kelly and myself have both agreed that the ban is silly, but have disagreed with the way it has been dealt with in this article. Hardly hysterical in opposition to the hyperbole in the article.

The whining in the article and comments cast both amateur and professional photographers as petulant complainers if they can't take their expensive equipement somewhere where the rules clearly state they can't. Instead, why not use your ire in a constructive way and write to the places/companies involved instead to get the rules amended?

This would lead to a better outcome for all involved and make it look like you're being proactive and responsible instead of bitchy.