Ruroni Poru comments

I don't think there is enough information in this article to reasonably judge this specific incident. I do think this law is precariously perched upon a potentially very slippery slope.

I mostly agree with JoiceRojo:

The thing is there is a thin line between violating your privacy and an Innocent shot, I mean if it came at the center of a photo being taken or deliberately when you are in the train or a plaza it shouldn't make feel uneasy because these shots are taken everyday everywhere, to me difference is when the picture is taken more than once, a woman wouldn't notice if an unwanted picture is taken just once, but when the picture is taken more than once it is annoying and upsetting if you have not consented.

Basically, if someone indicates--verbally or otherwise--that they don't want their picture taken, then the photographer needs to respect their wishes. Paparazzi are irritating enough when they are going after public figures; unleashing them on individuals who are not in the public eye is undesirable.

On the other hand, from the article it seems that this law is written so broadly it could potentially apply to other situations--someone taking pictures at a festival (the Awa Odori, for example), or even taking pictures at famous landmarks in Kyoto or elsewhere. (I've taken shots at Kiyomizudera with people in the frame because there was no way to compose the shot without them in it). In these cases, I am less sympathetic. These are public events and public places where people should expect a lot of pictures to be taken (I'm even less sympathetic to the couple who photobombed my shot at the Sapporo Yuki Matsuuri in 2010. But I'm over that. Sorta. Maybe...) ;-) More seriously, the concern that I (as an enthusiastic if amateur photographer) have is how this law is enforced. Walking up to a stranger on the train, pulling out a camera, and snapping away is one thing (and I would agree it is wrong); taking pictures of the people participating at a festival is quite another (I would argue that this is not wrong).

One additional point-- the idea that we have the "right" to control if--and how--we appear in photographs brings up some pretty thorny issues. Remember the picture of the South Vietnamese General who was photographed executing an enemy soldier? I'll bet he wished he had the right to prevent that photo from being taken. Or the photograph of the sailor kissing the nurse to celebrate the end of WWII. Do you really think Eisenstaedt asked for permission before shooting that photo? Was he "wrong" for taking it? I don't think he was wrong; other people may think he was, and there may well be a debate to be had on these issues... But it's not a simple one.

More broadly, I think the increasing presence of cameras (security and otherwise) / phones / technology in general is going to challenge and compel changes in the way people think about privacy over the next few decades. Twenty years from now (heck, 5-10 years from now), people may roll their eyes at things we would consider horrifying today.

The Canon EF 200-400 F4L with 1.4x extender is a single unit. It is a new lens, released last year I believe. The Extender is "built in" to the (200-400mm zoom) lens, in this case. However, if you want even MORE reach, you can mount this lens on top of a separate 1.4x (or even a 2x) tele convertor for even more reach (though your f-stop would take a wicked hit).

Here's a link for more info--

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-200-400mm-f-4-L-IS-USM-Extender-1.4x-Lens-Review.aspx