Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Kuwait Bans DSLR Cameras Use For Non-Journalists

Posted by kdawson on from the don't-give-'em-ideas dept.

DaveNJ1987 writes "Kuwait has banned the use of Digital Single Lens Reflex (DSLR) cameras in public places for anyone who is not a journalist. The ban, which was passed by the unanimous agreement of the country's Ministry of Social Affairs, Ministry of Information and Ministry of Finance, prevents the public from using DSLR devices on the streets of the Middle Eastern State. Tourists are to be affected by the new laws and must be aware of this before travelling to Kuwait. Smaller digital cameras and camera phones are exempt from the ban."

11 of 446 comments (clear)

  1. funny and ironic by yagu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An ironic twist I think... I know many people whose DSLR pictures totally suck because the camera is beyond their ability to master even simple photographs. Also, ironically, anyone who would want useful information from digital pictures can readily shoot quality pictures with non-DSLR digital cameras. Is this for real?

    1. Re:funny and ironic by Cwix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its not the camera that takes great photos, its the photographer. Ive seen great pics taken with a crappy disposable film camera. Ive seen shitty photos taken with a DSLR.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    2. Re:funny and ironic by blair1q · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's what you believe. The fact is that gun control prevents gun crime:

      http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/gunaus.htm
      http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-with-firearms

    3. Re:funny and ironic by lwsimon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's also apparent that the overall homicide rate is consistent with the trend prior to the enactment of the gun bans of '94-'96.

      I'm not sure why Aussies seem to think it better to be stabbed or beaten to death than to be shot, but more power to you, I guess. Myself, I prefer to be able to adequately defend myself.

      --
      Learn about Photography Basics.
    4. Re:funny and ironic by KingArthur10 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Annnnd..... you missed the point entirely. You CAN build a 500x zoom for a p&s. period.

      Oh so wrong. A 500mm lens is easy to build (well, 500mm in 35mm equivalence. A 500X lens would be an incredible feat. Lets say it's 10mm on the wide end (VERY close to fisheye). That would be a 10mm-5000mm lens. Hell, you find me a 5000mm lens on any system and I commend you. Technical knowledge, you know not.

      Lenses are not special on dslrs in any technical sense of the word. I specifically said that dslrs are more capable of producing better pictures. My recommendations on limiting quality are also more effective than the uninformed "ban all dslr" policy that is in place.

      Lenses on dSLRs are not special in any sense of the word. The issue is that your caps on pixel count is absurd on small format lenses. Diffraction, the scattering of light passing through an eyelit, as modified by smaller absolute apertures (although equivalent relative apertures), limits the camera's ability to resolve beyond 8-10MP. Even the significantly larger 4/3rd sensor on the Olympus and Panasonic system is diffraction limited to f/6ish. So, your arbitrary limitations would be useless and simply limit a company's ability to market their new 50bajillion megapixel camera to the public. It's as arbitrary as banning dSLR cameras.

      Yes, i know that you really can only subjectively measure quality, and sensor size matters when calculating relative zoom, but that isnt practical as a policy. What would be practical would be banning higher powered lenses, and limiting quality of sensor.

      "Higher powered lenses" are an arbitrary assignment. Are you saying banning telephoto lenses beyond a certain throw is a good idea? 'cause that MIGHT be more worthwhile. I can find you a 1x lens that can spy a rivet on a bridge across town easily. Again, the multiplier has no bearing.

      Issue is, how does anyone enforce that? Smaller sensor cameras use smaller lenses. There are some amazing 300mm+ lenses on P&S cameras that fold up into the body. Do we have all police become considerably more technically sound than yourself?

      It all reeks of political stupidity. Are they also banning EVIL cameras (no reflex mirror)? Interchangeable lens systems? Does that include adapters screwed onto the front of fixed lens systems?

      Point is, what you propose is nothing more than what they propose. It's all stupidity by those with no technical knowledge on the subject area.

      So you can act like a smug dick all day, but to imply that the slr aspect of a camera is what defines its capacities is wrong. Just. Wrong.

      Awwwwww.....did you not comprehend my previous post? Exactly my point. You, and those like you, are sadly the ones making these arbitrary rules.

      --
      I came, I saw, She conquered.
  2. This makes journalists easy to identify. by Lilith's+Heart-shape · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you can identify a journalist by his camera, it's easier to target journalists when you want to keep "bad news" from leaving the country.

    --

    I write sci-fi for metalheads

  3. Photography is Not a Crime! by dcollins · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oops, I guess it is.

    http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/248

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  4. Re:what about non-digital SLRs? by lazlo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Or what about interchangeable lens cameras with an LED-based "viewfinder" that do not actually use a reflex mirror? I think they're called by some "bridge cameras", and I'm not entirely sure I understand what the advantage of the reflex mechanism is for a digital camera. (for a film camera, yeah, I completely understand. But those reasons mostly don't translate to digial *at all*.)

    In reality, I suspect that the term DSLR is being abused similarly to "assault weapons" is in the US. The law really means any camera that looks too scary to be permitted to civilians, and the real definition will be defined ex post facto.

    --
    Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
  5. Yeah sure. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    USians simply don't grasp the fact that, bar war zones, they live in some of the places with the highest homicide rates in the world.

    The mental blockage to link phallic enthusiasm for guns and homicide rates eludes other wise reasonable pople (oh wait, half of you would vote for Sarah Palin if given a chance. Forget what I said)....

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Yeah sure. by Eivind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just out of curiosity, which of these countries are at a development-level comparable to USA ? Does even a single one of them have a GDP/person that's atleast 1/3rd of that in usa ?

      Can you find me a country where wealth/person is atleast half of USA, and where homicide-rates are comparable ?

      If you're happy to beat Kenya, then yeah, fine, more power to you.

    2. Re:Yeah sure. by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Call me crazy but I greatly prefer someone lunging at me with a knife in their hand. Fuck give them two knives. I also know that if I am running away from an attacker I greatly prefer they have something in their hand which requires close contact to be effective, and not a projectile weapon. Pre-meditated murders will still happen, but it's the jealous ex boyfriend, or cool dude you insulted infront of gang that will give you a fighting chance (or a running chance), even if they are armed with a fucking sword.