I went to Tulum yesterday and we had a huge issue with a video cam. My friends have a really nice video camera, paid the fee but were denied entrance to the Archeological Zone. Why? - Because they have a nice camera. We drove down from Cancun, paid the parking fee, paid to use the restrooms, then paid for the tram to the entrance. There we bought our tickets to enter the park and also paid the ticket price for taking a video camera into the AZ. We walked the 100 or so yards to where you give them your tickets and actually enter the park. Here the guy said we could not bring the camera into the park. He said it looked like a semi professional camera. While it was a nice camera, a bit larger than a handy cam, it was clearly not the type of camera that a professional would use. We walked back to the ticket booth and questioned the ticket seller. He said we could apply for a special permit in either Chetumal or Cancun that cost about $1,200 US. We did not want to take the camera back to my car and leave it in the blazing sun and risk having it stolen. So he told us we could leave the battery with the guy who told us we could not take it in, subject ourselves to a search to make sure we did not have a second battery and then we could carry it inside in our backpack. So we did this but the guy then demanded that we leave camera and all. We ended up leaving the park but we did get our ticket money and camera money back. We can always go back with a smaller camera but I would hate for anyone coming here on a vacation to be denied entrance for this reason. Funny thing was that they had a drawing of a video camera on the sign where you buy the tickets and it looked almost exactly like the camera we had and this was showing what you CAN take into the park. Bottom line is that no one cared, the employees were rude and did not know what the hell they were doing. Earlier they took the same camera to Chichen Itza with no problem. When we told these idiots that, we were told that we were in a different state and the rules were different. Well, guess what. The parks are national parks and not state parks so this explanation did not hold water.
Hmm, not good! What did the camera look like.. was it almost like a TV camera or just an upmarket palm sized handycam?
What does it look like? Well, let's see how good of a witness I would be for the sketch artist. It was a bit bigger than a handy cam, but nothing at all as big as a TV camera. I would guess it was just over a foot long but part of that was a soft eyepiece and I think a soft cover of some sort around the lens. I don't think it had a fancy microphone like you could use for spying on someone. The eyepiece sort of angled upward so you hold it low if you wanted that kind of shot. It could be operated with one hand only and that is for sure. It had a little screen that flipped out just like my Sony handycam. It was definitely an upscale model but not what I would call "broadcast quality". Just something that someone with money might want for fancier shots than a $500-$700 handy cam. No one could use it for movies that they would want to have any commercial value. The funny thing was that there was a painted sign with a sketch of a camera and it was so close to what was turned away. And the sign was NOT telling you what cameras were not permitted. The same sign did say that you COULD NOT take in a tripos. Hell, I have a tripod for what cost me $700 or $800 and its sure not a pro model. Plain and simple it was just BS. You could not get a straight answer from anyone so it was easiest just to leave and come back another day, maybe with my handycam next time. Kind of a tough question Steve but thats the best I can do. I just would suggest that anything much more than a handycam could be a potential problem.
