Photography at Trent Bridge

LC2

LC2

Negan
Messages
10,451
Name
Tim
Edit My Images
Yes
Does anyone have experience taking a 1/2 decent camera into Trent Bridge for a Test Match?
It's purely for my own use / enjoyment. Not professional in any way.

Would an 80D with a 70-300L be frowned upon / questioned?

I found this:
https://www.trentbridge.co.uk/visit/groundregs.html
But whilst there is no mention of photography, I really don't want to be handing camera / lens into security.

Would I be better off bunging a 18-200 Tamron on the front instead and accepting the drop in quality and reach?
 
I had no problem with taking D3200 and a Tamron 70-300 for the India test a few years back, and similar for Ashes test a couple of years before that.
 
Last edited:
Ta @Eloise. Hmm the 80d is probably a D7500 equivilent, and L lens attract attention.
I took an 1100D (D3100 or so) with a tamron last year to Headingly with no issues, but the 80D is a couple of steps up.

Don't think I'll risk it :/ I'll stick to a compact.
 
Firstly, there is nothing in the fules about photography.
Secondly, I doubt anybody would know the difference between a 1100D, D3100, D3200, 80D or any other body, stick a normal lens on the front and pack the zoom in your bag if you are worried somebody will say anything on entry.
Thirdly, if you did hand it to security, they would have to be responsible for it and I'm sure would keep it secure.
 
ecoleman said:
Thirdly, if you did hand it to security, they would have to be responsible for it and I'm sure would keep it secure.
Click to expand...

You'd have to be a bit daft to assume that.

Firstly almost any public deposit/cloakroom is covered by the 'left at owners risk' clause.

Secondly, in the past 9 months, thousands of pounds of photographic and computer equipment has been stolen from various sports events across the UK from right under the security detail's noses.
 
@DemiLion I'm don't think @Eloise or I were assuming anything.
I asked for experiences, and @Eloise simply provided hers.

Anyway, I later also spotted this

Cameras and mobile devices

Please note that the use of any cameras, mobile devices or any electronic equipment for the recording, transmission or communication of match footage, details, statistics, images (on any platforms including but not limited to websites and social media) etc, is not permitted, other than with the proper accreditation. All ground regulations apply.

You can, however, take pictures for your own personal use, providing you do not use specialist equipment such as telephoto lenses, tripods or mono pods.
Click to expand...
on:
https://www.trentbridge.co.uk/visit/internationals.html

Therefore I decided that discretion was the better part of Valour, and took my TZ8 instead.

Interestingly, the only accredited tog that was vaguely close to us had what looked like one of the long primes, not a tele, though I couldn't tell you what it was.
 
Why not just watch the cricket? You've no chance if getting shots anywhere near the quality of the pros. Go and enjoy a day out. Taking photos isn't the be all and end all.
If you want a good photo cut one out of tomorrow's paper.
 
mickledore said:
Why not just watch the cricket? You've no chance if getting shots anywhere near the quality of the pros. Go and enjoy a day out. Taking photos isn't the be all and end all.
If you want a good photo cut one out of tomorrow's paper.
Click to expand...
Oh I did (and I did last time too). I suspect I took less photos than the plethora of selfie takers around the place.
 
DemiLion said:
You realise that I was addressing Elliot's comment, yes?
Click to expand...

I did think that, yes. But she was only posting her experiences (as requested).

It was exactly the issues you highlighted that was concerning me. I was quite happy taking my old 1100d and tamron 18-200 last year as it's worth, well less than most smart phones to be fair, but a new 80D + 70-300L is a different kettle of fish. (D3200 is a little newer than a 1100D , but not much, and in the same consumer range).

What was initially puzzling me is that I couldn't find any reference to photography in the ground regs page on their site (linked in my first post) and this is what sparked the thread. I did find further info later on, but it only after a final search, after my post on Friday night, and we were leaving on the Saturday at 7am, so I didn't post anything further.

All bags were searched. I do wonder what the result would have been.
 
DemiLion said:
You'd have to be a bit daft to assume that.

Firstly almost any public deposit/cloakroom is covered by the 'left at owners risk' clause.

Secondly, in the past 9 months, thousands of pounds of photographic and computer equipment has been stolen from various sports events across the UK from right under the security detail's noses.
Click to expand...

If security staff insisted on taking equipment then their clause of "left at own risk" would never stand up in court. They would be responsible for the equipment and would be liable if something happened to it.

Just because a clause is in terms and conditions doesn't make it legal or enforceable.
 
ecoleman said:
If security staff insisted on taking equipment then their clause of "left at own risk" would never stand up in court. They would be responsible for the equipment and would be liable if something happened to it.

Just because a clause is in terms and conditions doesn't make it legal or enforceable.
Click to expand...


You are generally given the option of depositing the kit with security, returning it to your vehicle (if you have one) or leaving the premises all together. Hence the 'at owners risk' would almost certainly stand up, because you have a choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top