AL3XCruise

On 2/27/2020 at 11:22 AM, zackiedawg said:

Since all camera divisions are declining in sales every year, and trends continuing to predict the same, the strongest, largest conglomerate companies may be the ones who can stick with it longer, offsetting losses in one division by huge profits in another, especially if there's a particular prestige that can't be measured in profits - Sony may value the press they get about their cameras, seeing their name on broadcast or press cameras, general bragging rights, etc - and may feel that those things are worth losing a little money over especially when that money only contributes 1-2% of your overall corporate spending. 

It is hard to guess what Sony values the prestige of cameras at, but I think the supplier power they have is another factor to consider here.  All the players are huge and involved in many segments, but Sony is the largest and most diverse.  That gives them leverage with suppliers who they work with across multiple segments, which in turn has the potential to improve their marginal costs relative to some other companies.  As the camera market shrinks, that could turn out to be a key advantage.

On 2/27/2020 at 12:04 PM, pierces said:

The whole industry is shrinking and cameras as cameras are all becoming niche products. Most photos are taken with phones these days and that percentage will undoubtedly grow. What the top camera companies should do is look into making phones.

  It is hard for me to envision so many DSLR and Mirrorless systems being on the market in another decade given the continued advancement of phone cameras.  The simple truth is that one or more of the big players will eventually decide the investment in cameras doesn't justify the return and pull out of the market.  As you both have pointed out, we really don't know who that is going to be.   It will also be interesting to see if their are sales/consolidation or some divisions simply shut down.  Regardless, the assertions made in the article just don't gives us any real insight into what is going to happen.  I guess there a reason it is on photo blogger and not in a well known business journal.

Thenford Grey (https://www.thenfordgreytours.com/) is always highly recommended when people inquire about St. Kitts tours.  Having taken a tour with him I believe that reputation is well deserved.

Ship movement is going to limit exposure time, and that will be exacerbated if using a long lens.  I've seen someone get reasonable results on a ship by stacking many relatively short exposures from a fast, wide-angle lens.  With enough total exposure time and good post processing he was able to overcome the light pollution of the ship itself.  I don't recall if he used any kind of tracking or if the exposures were short enough that it didn't matter.

Personally I'd be more inclined to drive an hour or two to a darker area at home and shoot than try to worry about it onboard unless there was something very specific happening I wanted to capture.

On 2/13/2020 at 3:25 PM, pierces said:

The R5 could be well over $5k with all the specs listed so far. Other than lacking a tank-like build, it is specced closer to the top of their line than the current mirrorless bodies.

I figure it will be somewhere between the initial price of the 5DIV and 1DXII.  We shall see. 

I'd like more resolution and faster shooting than my 5DIII provides.  Better high ISO performance would be welcome too.  I may personally try to buy a used 5DIV from someone who is upgrading rather than spring for an R5.

I think I'll be looking at the EOS R5 rather than the D6 or the 1DX III.  Certain pros may need those features, but I don't think I could make good use of them.

2 hours ago, blcruising said:

While that may be the model of other businesses, that does not accurately describe the historical  pricing model of the cruise industry.  Carnival, Royal, Princess, or Celebrity don't subscribe to that model....if they did, I'd be sailing them, too. Their prices are more consistent and steady.... a few hundred up or down, often selling out weeks before the cruise.

They all follow a similar overall model in terms of revenue management, but as you noticed different companies will choose to be more or less aggressive in their strategy.  Aggressive changes arguably provide a line with the ability to extract the maximum willingness to pay from each cruiser, but (as you point out) educated consumers can often use this system to their advantage.  In addition, major price changes tend to have a negative PR impact, which some lines consider more than others.

2 hours ago, BirdTravels said:

The cruise fare is a tiny part of the revenue generated by each passenger onboard. 

The cruise fare accounts for the majority of the revenue generated by major cruise lines.  RCI's 2018 annual report showed more than 70% of passenger related revenue coming from the base fare.  You may be thinking that without onboard spending added into the equation the lines would struggle to be profitable, which is true.  

9 hours ago, Starry Eyes said:

I do not think my views are extreme:  Buy insurance if you want your money back if you must cancel.  Read the policies carefully and buy carefully.  Nothing extreme.

I agree.  While I feel for any cruiser concerned about, and especially impacted by, the Coronavrius, it doesn't negate that a little research into trip insurance options would have solved most problems. 

An exception to a policy may seem like the kind thing to do, but it can adversely impact other cruisers who carefully managed their travel risk.  After all, the looser a cruise line is with refunds and credits, the more it needs to charge.  That becomes a burden to all travelers, including responsible ones that took steps to protect themselves.

I know that some policies have specific exclusions which make dealing with cancellations, denied boarding, etc., difficult, so there are people out there who are stuck in tough spots despite believing they had suitable insurance in place.  That isn't a situation I believe the cruise line should try to rectify, but I'll admit to having a lot more sympathy for these people than those who failed to procure any insurance or chose to cancel their trips.

5 hours ago, tcc8v said:

The arrogance of the Carnival Corporation is unbelievable.  It is time that they ate a big portion of humble pie.

 

We have considerable power to influence corporate behavior.  I have never used social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.), but it is time for us to use them.  I am going to step into the social media sphere this afternoon.

You do realize most influence via social media relies on having the connections that build your credibility and get your message in front of lots of eyes?  In most cases someone who hasn't, or rarely, uses as social media platform but steps decides to post a diatribe about a particular issue isn't going to get much support.  Much like you have seen here.

While bizarre things do occasionally happen online, you are likely be in line for some humble pie yourself if you think a few angry posts are going to impact CCL's decisions.  CCL very well may decide that, due to public relations and/or evolving events, they need to revise their policies.  It won't be due to an angry tweet.

3 minutes ago, das1e said:

I'll try that because the cruisetoports app didn't work for my dates nor ports.  The data for my cruise must not be loaded yet.

Many ports publish schedules, so as mentioned above finding the ports website tends to be the most reliable method.  Some of these other sites are useful, but there are errors and omissions.

On 2/3/2020 at 11:38 AM, peety3 said:

Zoom lenses are OK to start with, but you can get a heck of a lot of performance out of a "prime" (non-zoom, aka fixed focal length) lens for the same or less money.

With longer lenses, the zooms tend to be cheaper than the primes.  Most long primes are fast, heavy lenses that will provide exceptional results, but unless the OP has a strong arm and open checkbook they will likely find a well regarded telephoto zoom to be cheaper and more practical.  In addition, even when primes are cheaper you either need to give up flexibility or buy more of them and hope you are an environment where you can swap them out as needed.  

21 hours ago, UnorigionalName said:

The iphone 11s are remarkably good cameras.  You want to look at higher end cameras to do better than an iphone 11.  I wouldn't bother with a compact camera.  The iphone 11 is decently weather proof as it is.

 

The biggest issue is budget.  The upper limit is basically infinity.  The driver between how high you go is what purpose you are taking pictures for.  If you want pretty pictures that you can keep and show on a computer screen/tv screen vs, you want to make a 30" print of it and hang it on the wall.

 

DSLR are kind of going away... Mirrorless is all the rage now.  Either fixed lens or removable lens.  Photographers basically never consider form factor and tend to recommend the largest bulkiest stuff, but it is an important thing for me, and may be for you too.  I feel like photographers are also way too happy to push newcomers into DSLRs because they are afraid to see that market segment die.

The OP has a specific need for telephoto performance, which is probably the weakest area of a modern smart phone.  I doubt it will be hard to find a camera with an optical zoom that can outperform the phone; landscapes will be much closer.

I have found that the quality of images from my phone is great for viewing on the phone and most small tablets and screen (assuming no cropping, good light, and no digital zoom).  Monitors larger than 15" start to show some hints of quality issues, and, of course, large prints and really big TVs will not give great results.  The latest iPhone is probably better, and some of the issues I don't like may be tolerable to others, but I think most people will find a Mirrorless/DSLR will be noticeably better before you get to supersized prints.  Still, I think the latest crop of phones are more than adequate for most purposes if the final product is meant to be share via social media.

As far as photographers pushing bulky stuff, that hasn't been my experience.  Some only care about optics and 10+ pounds of lens is nothing to them, but others want a balance between size, price, and quality.  The mirorrless camera, especially the Sony ones, have really seemed to appeal to this group.  I shoot Canon full frame because that's what my friends were shooting when I got into photography.  While I really like the quality I get, I have often wondered if I would have been better off going with APS-C.  I'd have a lighter camera, a heavier wallet, and the photos would look extremely similar!

As you said, there are always tradeoffs.  Money can solve a lot of the issues, but not all.  A full frame camera with a big telephotos will never be lightweight no matter how much cash you spend!

19 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

This is a decent site.  The numbers are based on max capacity.  At double capacity, the numbers would be a little higher.  

That would be the site I stopped using do to finding several inaccuracies.  It starts off bad when they try to relate gross tonnage to cubic footage and talk about big and small cabins having something to do with space ratio, and then proceeds to have several errors where they either input the wrong data or just flubbed the math.

2 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

Agreed. And there are so many factors that may appeal to you personally and not to someone else on any given ship. For example, large spaces given over to pool decks, spas, etc. are not space I really utilize or value. Also not sure how the big open (loud, busy) atriums of many bigger ships figure into that space ratio. There is a lot of volume there, but is it usable space?  

 

In general if its enclosed, it counts.  So an outdoor pool has no impact, an indoor one does.  And because its based on volume that multi-story atrium increases the ratio without providing much additional square footage.  Hence I agree that design and personal preference will have a bigger impact than ratio, especially when the ratios are relatively close.

2 hours ago, Joebucks said:

For me, I love the bigger ships. Vacation to me is all about fun and relaxation, both of which are in no short supply there. Maybe I want to start my day in the adult relaxation area getting sun, maybe I want to go to main deck when there are parties, maybe comedy later in the day, maybe gamble in the casino, maybe play some games in the sports deck or arcade, maybe there is a playoff game and we want to watch it in the sports bar, maybe end the night at the club, and on and on.

I agree. There are a lot of things on a megaship that are done (likely better) in certain cities or at some resorts, but the combination of having access to these and traveling to new destinations is a big plus to people who don't have the vacation time to got to NYC, Las Vegas, and visit several Mediterranean cities. 

For some it also offers a great value proposition; the cost of cruise is generally far less than trying to do something comparable piecemeal.  Just going to NYC for a couple days to see a show on Broadway can approach the cost of a cruise, so I think it is certainly understandable why some people choose to spend vacation dollars on these behemoths.

2 hours ago, Dyncymraeg said:

Some people may assume that a ship with a large number of passengers will have issues with overcrowding and it is interesting to read this is not always the case. Has anyone been on a ship you felt  was overcrowded.

One big issue is time of year and the resulting passenger load.  NCL Breakaway, for instance, carries just under 4,000 passengers assuming two per traditional cabin and one in each solo cabin.  When school is in session and the majority of travelers are adults with just a few families, you tend to find that relatively close to the number on board.  Breakaway has a maximum passenger load of a little over 5,000.  During school breaks and holidays whit family travel, you get much closer to that number.  As you can imagine, adding 1,000 people to the ship, whether kids or adults, can have a HUGE impact on how people perceive the vessel.

23 minutes ago, Aquahound said:

What's key is the space to passenger ratio.  40s is good.  Low to mid 30s is bad.  20s is atrocious.  Escape was 31.  Oasis Class, just like many Premium ships, is in the 40s.

Passenger space ratio has a LOT of limitations.  First it is based on a logarithmic representation of total interior space.  That means outdoor decks can vary from what it suggests, it does not account for design factors of public spaces, and it does not account for crew and mechanical spaces.  

In addition, there are variables when calculating it, such as using dual occupancy numbers or maximum occupancy.  Escape at dual occupancy, for instance, has 38.7.  Oasis is around 41.  At max occupancy they drop to roughly 31 and 33 respectively.  With a delta like that, the design of the ship will have FAR more influence than a passenger space ratio.  Of course, most agree with wide open decks on Oasis beat Escape in terms of design.

I agree the ratios are use for rough analysis, and something in the 20s in frightening, but it is important to see the limitations and not put too much weight on them.  It is also important not to mix ratios computed with different capacities.

7 minutes ago, cruisemom42 said:

Where can one find those ratios?  I'm curious if my perceptions line up with the reality.

 

I agree Caribbean Princess felt crowded. 

There are several websites that have them, but I haven't seen one without errors so I tend to run the numbers myself if interested.  It is simply gross tonnage divided by passenger capacity.  Just make sure you are comparing dual occupancy to dual occupancy or max occupancy to max occupancy, or you get some useless results!

For reference, Caribbean Princess is around 36 at dual occupancy, so less than either Escape or Oasis.

6 hours ago, zauberflote said:

Wonder why they look better in photos? I've heard that before. 

In general, cameras have a few features that let them handle low light well.  Digital cameras have variable sensitivity to light (ISO) that enables them to change how the sensor perceives incoming light.  In general, high ISO means you get more detail in low light, but with more image quality issues.  If you look at the images in this this thread on a sufficiently high resolution screen, you will see a grainy, fuzziness to them.  It is most noticeable in the darker areas.  That is the result of using high ISO.  Low ISO would produce a lot less of that fuzz, but wouldn't collect as much light--thus the aurora itself would be less impressive.

Depending on the camera, the sensor can also be quite large, meaning more area to collect light.  One weakness of cell phone cameras is the sensors need to be very small.  Manufacturers spend a lot of time and money on the software that processes the image the sensor takes in order to improve the quality as much as possible.

There are some other options available to take photos of dim objects, but the don't apply to most point and shoot cameras or cell phones.

1 hour ago, SeaShark said:

The point is that even on the Encore you still get all the included stuff for free. Period. The only thing they might have is additional optional choices, however that doesn't change the fact that you still get the same free things you get with any other cruise.

Included not free ;).  But I'm sure that is what you meant.

A I believe @mianmike explained fairly well, a lot of folks debating semantics of a colloquial term.  The fact is some people view what NCL does as a great way of giving them a choice to spend on only those extras they want, others see it as an inconvenience to worry about many additional expenses once onboard.

Tying things back to business strategy, it is obvious that NCL views additional fee services as a good way to generate additional revenue.  FDR and company have said at previous investor calls building the top line is the top priority, and adding more and more revenue generating extras onboard is a major component of that effort.  That is obviously a move that will upset the all-inclusive crowd, but it seems that, for now, not many people are voting against it with their cash.

15 hours ago, mikegw2 said:

When 11,000+ cruise purchasers were asked in a 2018 survey what was important or very important in selecting a cruise ship and destination, here’s what they said (the survey excluded passengers on high-end luxury lines):

Do you have a link to the survey?  I'm curious about the methods used, sample makeup, question formatting, etc.  Seeing such a discrepancy between certain items raises some questions in my mind.

I definitely agree with you industry data is more important than personal observations or discussions on a message board, but I want to make sure I fully understand the data.  

15 hours ago, mikegw2 said:

First, NCL would have been stupid to build Encore with the same features that they offer on other ships sailing the same waters at the same time.  Anyone who understands marketing strategy knows that you drive growth through differentiation and appeal to a wide range of market segments. No company grows by being the same or staying the same.

Marketing strategy can focus on expanding to other segments or trying to grab more share from a specific target segment.  The former generally requires more radical change than the latter, but you are right that stagnation is never a sustainable growth strategy.  You can, of course, compete on price rather than differentiation, but NCL has made it clear that is not the strategy the wish to embrace.  Each BA/BA+ ship has added something that increases revenue, attracts customers, or both.  NCL also has a portfolio of brands to cater to other market segments, including those who may be displaced as NCL continues to refine its focus.

1 hour ago, mom says said:

Neither. No matter how rich I was, I wouldn't want the maintenance headaches. Just book the most luxurious suites on whatever ship is going where you want to go, and let someone else worry about the details.

If you have the money for a 300 to 600 foot yacht and a staff to run it, you have the money for other to manage all the details.  Set up correctly (and, of course, without regard to cost) you have far more flexibility and fewer things to worry about than when dealing with a TA or cruise line.

Sure certain equipment failures or weather might disrupt your trip, but that is the same as on a cruise.  And if things get bad, you just charter a different yacht while yours goes into drydock.

18 minutes ago, BlueRiband said:

BOAT =
Break

Out

Another

Thousand

But we are talking megayachts.  Breaking out a thousand won't even cover your wine for dinner!

4 hours ago, ljmandelbaum said:

Not sure on budget yet I haven't gotten that far in my thinking.  I want to take pictures on our trip as well as getting nice shots of my daughters playing soccer.  Possible basketball if my daughter goes back to it.  Not to mention one of my girls is doing track so I would love to get good pictures of her during her events as well.

It sounds like one key requirement is zoom, which is one area where bridge cameras, DSLRs, and mirrorless cameras still have a big advantage over cell phones.

A bridge camera is something between a traditional point and shoot camera and a full-fledged DSLR or mirrorless camera.  They don't have interchangeable lenses, but the permanently attached lens often covers a wide range.  They tend to be lighter and cheaper than DSLR or mirrorless cameras.  They normally use smaller, cheaper sensors than bigger cameras.  This may not be a problem for Instagram and facebook sharing, but if you plan on fullscreen viewing on a high resolution monitor or printing you'll want to be careful.

The next step up is an APS-C camera, either a DSLR or mirrorless.  APS-C refers to the size of the sensor.  They are fairly common and can give great results.  APS-C is physically smaller than full-frame sensors, so the cameras (and the lenses) are typically smaller and cheaper for a comparable capability/quality.  In theory full-frame is better, but unless money and weight aren't an issue APS-C is probably a better fit as a step up from a phone.

An APS-C camera with something like a 18-400mm lens is going to be a very versatile tool for everything from landscapes to wildlife and soccer games.  

All of the major brands have good products, with Canon and Nikon being the most common.  Because they are common, you generally have more options for lenses and accessories.  But I know people that are happy with Pentax, Sigma, and others.  Sony has been making major inroads lately. 

In my case, I started shooting Canon because my friends had Canon and we share lenses.  Now I have more money in Canon compatible lenses than I ever spent on the camera, so my next camera will probably be Canon too.  If you know anyone into photography and might be borrowing lenses from them... well, that might help choose what brand to get!

Canon's entry level DSLR are the "Rebels".  I'm not too familiar with them, but I don't think they have weather sealing on the market.  As @TheOldBearsaid that might be something to look for.  The 80D and 90D are probably the cheapest weather sealed Canon cameras, but they are getting up into the high end amateur/semi-pro range.  Nikon, of course, has a similar lineup. 

Sony's A6X00 series has been very popular lately.  It is a mirorrless camera and thus is lighter than a traditional DSLR but lacks the optical viewfinder.  I believe several folks on this board have used one and might be able to give you some info.

I don't have enough experience to issues specific recommendations, but I hope some of my ramblings can help you narrow down where to look!

Any budget that you are looking at? 

Any particular types of photos you are trying to take in Alaska?

How important is image quality?  

7 hours ago, Krazy Kruizers said:

 

Great shot -- what city / port is it?

Baltimore's inner Harbor. 

10 hours ago, lenquixote66 said:

In 1988 I wrote a book .My publisher gave me 500 copies that I gave away for FREE to co workers,friends,relatives,neighbors and strangers on streets.When the book went into second printing a few years later I gave FREE copies to people on cruises as well as strangers on streets.

 Depending on the quality of your writing, those books may have still come with a cost ;).

12 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

I fully agree with you.  'Free' things are more appropriately called 'included'.  Even all of those 'free' things listed in this article have costs.

I found it amusing how the the article explains that what people perceive as free actually aren't.  It then lists a number of things people perceive as free but actually aren't claiming they are actually free.

16 hours ago, seaturtle_808 said:

And I wouldn't put it past Carnival that they blamed the wind when it was really a combination of wind and propulsion issue for Grand Turk. They're probably especially on edge about wind after the recent Carnival Glory mishap. 

While they may be on edge after the Glory mishap, the propulsion issue probably isn't impacting the decision at Grand Turk.  Only a fraction of the ship's power is needed for docking when compared to operating at cruising speeds, so the vast majority of speed impacting problems don't preclude docking.  Getting to the port on time, of course, is an issue, but the OP states they had arrived in Grand Turk but simply couldn't dock.

Of course, the combination of propulsion nixing one port and weather preventing another is still an unfortunate one for passengers.

36 minutes ago, mattR said:

No I don't understand compression so can I print a 2k/3k resolution image up to 20x30inch canvas?  The file size of the image is only 1.71MB but it has a lot of white?

The compression isn't the most important consideration (assuming it wasn't done horribly).  Most images are compressed in some way, shape, or form to reduce size.  Uncompressed image files are huge.  Compressing an image does result in a loss of quality, but if done within reason it isn't normally a major issue unless a lot of touching up and editing is required.

More important is the resolution.  2000x3000 will generally not yield good results scaled to a 20x30 inches.    You only have 100 pixels per inch in that case (or dots per inch when printed, hence the DPI term).  You can contact your printer about what they feel is a minimum for the canvas you are working with, but in most applications I've worked with that is well below the minimum. 

It sounds to me like RCI is giving you files geared towards printing at 8x10 or similar sizes.

You may be able to get some more detailed information in the photography subforum, as some of the experts there have a lot more experience than me and may have some additional suggestions.  Based on the level of quality you are willing to accept, the material you are printing on, what the viewing distance is, etc, there might be a way to make it work to your satisfaction.

https://boards.cruisecritic.com/forum/72-photo-camera-discussions/

From my last trip of 2019...

Mute Swan