Continuity fail

Retirement

Just for fun

So if you have been following this blog page, then you know that I have been keeping myself somewhat busy during my retirement by working as an Extra (referred to as Background or BG) in the local TV and film industry. As I've detailed before, a day on set can be paralyzingly boring, with most of your time spent sitting in "Background holding", waiting to be called to set. And when you do get there, your action might simply to walk back and forth, or sit in a chair in, of course, the background. You'd need to have a pretty keen eye to catch me, or I'd have to say, "in the Resident Alien kidnapping scene, watch for me in the RV".

But sometimes, you pretty much know that you're going to be seen in a particular set up. e.g. in the above scene on So Help Me Todd (Ep. 11),  the actors were right behind me, so I assumed I'd be somewhat noticeable in the final edit. Now normally, the directoral team takes great strides to make sure you're in the right place at the proper moment, and conversely, try to keep you from being in the wrong place. But when I got booked by casting for another day on So Help Me Todd, I didn't think much of it; BG often get cycled through shows, and sometimes they do want the same ones back, if they need what is referred to as "continuity".

This scene was set up as Todd and his mother watch mobile phone video of the actual murder itself, where the actor uses the knife to stab her co-worker. So I think to myself, "I'm not supposed to be a witness to the murder, then a courtroom lawyer the next day". This is the opposite of continuity; I really shouldn't be playing two different roles in a given TV show, let alone the same episode. I mention it to the AD, who quickly shuffles me to what he thinks is a less obvious spot, but it turned out that I was even more prominent on screen! Oh well. As we often say, "it's above my pay grade". Besides, only a couple of my friends who watch the show caught it; the average viewer would never have noticed.

Viking vs. Gate 1 river cruise observations

Travel and Leisure

Editor's note: I've written this for those that might be new to river cruising, and due to Viking's extensive marketing, that's probably the only brand they have heard of. I'm not a travel agent, nor am I affiliated with Gate 1, so don't really care who you book with, but for those where a few thousand dollars saved is a huge deal, I thought I'd jot down what our friends told me. I have nothing against Viking; if you're a huge fan and want to keep sailing with them, that's great. I've not written this piece for you.

David vs. Goliath

After our first trip with Uniworld on the Rhine, we got hooked on river cruising, and I started to do a lot more research into the different operators, routes and pricing options. Since she was a travel agent, and we received a special price for our first cruise, I didn't know a thing about this unique way of exploring Europe, nor was I aware of what existed out there.

Viking always shows up in your Google searches

I started Googling, and of course, one of the first hits that you will get is for Viking river cruises, even if it is a Google Ad. Sign up for the free brochures? Sure! Now we get a glossy brochure on our doorstep at least once a month... in fact one just showed up today! With so much money going into advertising, everyone knows who Viking is, but what about the other end of the marketing spectrum?

 

We stumbled onto Gate 1 because I subscribe to a travel discount page, Travelzoo. It's not a discount travel agency, but rather a way for tour operators, hotels, etc. to advertise and create promos without doing it themselves. We jumped on one great deal with Vantage for Tulips and Windmills, so we validated the usefulness of Travelzoo that time. But when a promo came up for a ridiculous deal for a Danube river cruise with Gate 1, we nervously pulled the trigger. We had no idea if Gate 1 was a legit tour organisation (of course they are), but with virtually no advertising, how were we supposed to know what we were getting into?

Anyhow, as I've written about in a previous post, Gate 1 has become our current favourite river cruise operator (vs. Uniworld, Vantage, and Emerald). While on our Gate 1 trip, we made friends with a couple from the West coast as well, and they recently returned from a Viking cruise on the Rhine. I have always been curious about Viking, so I asked them, "how does Viking compare to Gate 1?"

Disclaimer: I'm just the messenger here; I'm quoting their comments to me almost verbatim, then offering my thoughts vis-à-vis the Gate 1 experience that we shared with them.

• 
  The clientele on Viking were much older than the Gate 1 crowd. As I've commented numerous times, we've met lovely people on all our cruises, and you will too, sharing stories of your day with others during evening cocktails and dinner. But sometimes the average age of the cruisers can slow things down, like evening port talks and loading/unloading coaches. Conversely, Gate 1 had a first-come, first-served bus policy; this meant that the faster, more agile folks got on and headed off without delay. With the somewhat younger demographics on Gate 1, we didn't feel like we were being held back/slowed down as much.
• 
  Food wasn't as good, especially breakfast; limited choices and repetitive. Didn't deal with food requests/allergies very well. Gate 1 had better variety and regional cuisine was superior. Gate 1 wait staff were very accommodating for my wife's allergies, even making sure she did not select certain items from the buffet. We especially liked that Gate 1 had at least one regional dish in each port; e.g. weinerschnitzel in Austria. In my comparison post, I commented that you're not going to get terrible food on a river cruise, but foodies might be disappointed by some lines.
• 
  Entertainment was not as good on Viking, likely due to age of crowd. We had a great entertainment coordinator on our Gate 1 cruise, and participation level from the guests was very high. While evening activities on board were limited, Gate 1 made the best of it with fun games like trivia and name that tune, etc. They even had some token prizes (e.g. local cookies and wine) awarded for the winners of each evening's event!
• Viking air proved to be problematic; extra charge of $150 to use our airline; Gate 1 did not charge for that. This is an issue I've read about with Viking on the FB group; the one time we booked our air with the river cruise operator (Avalon), they booked with our desired carrier and flight selections at no extra charge.
• 
  New ship (1 yr old) and clean lines which we liked. Booked a French balcony and liked it. Viking's ships are almost identical, so if you like the look, you'll not be disappointed on any of their ships. Their French balcony room is small at only 135 sq. ft., compared to a similar room with Gate 1 at 172 sq. ft. Gate 1 leases most of their ships, except the Monarch Empress, which from the video, seems quite nice.  You can look up other videos, photos and reviews of their other ships on Google too. Our Gate 1 ship has been retired, but it was fine (Cat B stateroom pictured). Gate 1 interiors have a more traditional design, but not busy (e.g. Uniworld). 
• 
  Tours were the same. Contrary to popular belief, you are likely getting the same local walking tour on Viking as you are on Gate 1. As we have seen in person, the local guides that show you around town are shared amongst most of the river cruise operators. i.e. when the local guide finishes with their Viking group, they change their lanyard and QuietVox, and head out with a different ship's group.

The above few factors led them to indicate that, "We won't river cruise with Viking again". Of course, one of the reasons why we like Gate 1 is because I am so cheap frugal, and you can get such great deals with Gate 1. Viking seems to always have a sale going on too, but if you delve deeper, it seems that their list prices are over-inflated by at least the cost of flights, as they almost always offer free air. I'm not saying you can't get a good price with Viking, but just don't get sucked in by the promo offer; tally up the final costs including room upgrade and deduct any air allowance. I like to use a per night rate to compare against others; you can read more on my math here. Upgrading to a room with a French balcony or their Veranda Stateroom will quickly escalate that seemingly great offer. 

If you are patient, you can likely find a deal with Gate 1 for desirable dates in the range of $200-240 USD/night in a French balcony room (sometimes far less). Virtually all the posts from cruisers who have done both on the river cruise FB group or the Gate 1 one will claim that they felt the value they received on their Gate 1 cruise was better than their Viking experience. I can't claim that, but given our other river cruises with Uniworld, Vantage and Emerald, which were all very similar, I'd be surprised if I came away with a substantially different opinion. Indeed, if I take all of our friends' comments above at face value, you get the same or better experience with Gate 1, but at a substantially lower price.

But Gate 1 has some noticeable differences that may or may not matter to you. For example, beer and wine are not included with lunch, as they are on all the other operators I can think of. They also don't give free transfers to/from the airport unless you book your airfare with them (vs. say, Emerald who gives free transfers regardless). There aren't any free backpacks and travel document folios sent out before your trip, and you won't find reusable water bottles or tour books to take with you in your room (Edit: Emerald no longer offers backpacks and travel folios). Likely the biggest issue is the size of the fleet and lack of routes served. e.g. Viking pretty much covers every river itinerary you can think of, as well as providing (pricey) pre- or post-cruise extensions in cool European cities (that are not necessarily on the river's itinerary - e.g. Paris). Gate 1 does the Seine, Douro, Rhine, Danube, "Grand European", and Holland/Belgium - they also do extensions, but limited to the obvious nearby embarkation/disembarkation points. Regardless, if you would like to keep your river cruise budget in line, Gate 1 should be on your list for consideration.

Counterpoint

I am not ashamed to admit it - I like McDonalds. Billions upon billions of customers agree, and have proven that Mickey-Ds is not a bad place for a burger. The same must be true with Viking; at last count, they have 80 longships servicing Europe's waterways. With up to 190 guests per sailing (which is much more than other operators), you end up with hundreds of thousands of guests per year! That can't be an accident. Their product must be good enough for guests to want to repeat their experience, and their model seems to work for those cruisers. As a first-timer river cruiser, are you going to have a great time on Viking? I would almost guarantee it. How can I make that assertion? It's because as a newbie, you have nothing to compare to. French balcony room seems a little small? Pfft. You haven't been in an Avalon Panorama Suite, so you don't know what that's like. You won't miss the free backpacks and water bottles that you weren't expecting anyways. Keep sailing on Viking, and you will continue to be blissfully unaware of the differences out there with other river cruise operators; there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. Don't worry, be happy.

Which camera to travel with?

Travel and Leisure

Around 2018, I decided to try and improve my photography by upgrading my camera kit. Why did I need a new camera? I had a pretty good camera on my smartphone, right? At the time, it was ok (iPhone 5), and I also had what they used to call a "prosumer" camera - a softball-sized, all-in-one Canon that could go from landscape photos to ultra-zoom with a push of a button.

Canon SX10 IS vs. EOS M2 mirrorless

Even with its relatively small sensor, it could still take way better pictures than my iPhone, but I had heard about the new mirrorless camera technology that had brought DSLR-like capabilities down in size and price. A friend suggested that I look at the new iPhone X that had just come out, but I balked at the hefty price. Besides, nothing can come close to the optical zoom capabilities of a real camera lens (vs. digital zoom of an iPhone).

So I pulled the trigger on an Amazon bundle for a used Canon EOS M2 (already a 5-year old camera at the time) with an 18-55mm kit lens and a 22mm prime. The change in images was immediate; the skill of the photographer was not, however. I was so impressed with the pictures that came out of the M2, that I bought a 55 - 200mm zoom lens as well. The sensor on this camera is slightly smaller than a full DSLR, so effective full zoom is 300mm! Inexpensive, even for my Scottish blood, I had put together a pretty complete mirrorless camera kit for around $800 CDN.

What made the difference?

Any Google search will give you much more information than I'm prepared to detail here, but there are about three primary differences that make this newish interchangeable lens camera better than what I had: sensor size, ISO sensitivity and glass quality. I won't get into it, but it all has to do with how much light you can get onto the sensor, and how that light is processed by the image sensor. This mountain scene from Mount Revelstoke was shot at full zoom with my 300mm lens and image stabilisation; I could never have been achieved this with an iPhone without the loss of perspective and the mountain appearing flat.

The more light and the bigger the sensor you have, the better the photos you can take. With the ability to change lenses, the Canon can capture images that I would never have been able to with my iPhone 5 (which I had upgraded to a used iPhone 6 that same year). Low light performance is nothing short of amazing; where my old camera or iPhone used to struggle with grainy, murky shots, the Canon can replicate interior scenes without the need for a flash or a tripod. This dramatic interior church scene in Lisbon would have required a tripod with my old camera, and I'd never have tried with my iPhone. One of the reasons I bought a Canon mirrorless, is that it would work with my existing Canon flash, but I have found that it rarely gets used, as more realistic pictures can be captured without it.

Enter a new era of iPhone cameras

A friend gave me his iPhone 8 a couple of years ago, which has one camera with a fixed focal equivalent of 28mm; i.e. if you were viewing the image through a traditional SLR camera, the coverage area/zoom would be the same as a 28mm lens. When you "zoom" with an iPhone, you're not actually changing the focal length, but instead you are making the image larger by magnifying or cropping the existing digital image. However, new iPhone Pros come with three cameras, in 13mm, 26mm and 52mm focal equivalents (77mm on Max ones). But it's not just the different camera lens types, but the amount of photo processing done by the iPhone technology. After seeing some impressive photos from others that I know are only using their iPhones, I started doing some research, and realised that things had moved along quite a bit since the initial introduction of Portrait Mode. So after the bit of internal debate, and knowing that my iPhone 8 will eventually become unsupported (I figure that iOS 16 will be its final software version), I picked up a used iPhone 12 Pro. 

Travel capabilities and features

Any iPhone can take a decent photo in bright daylight, so why is it that I have been toting around a camera? Well, here are the things that I have found matter to me, mostly when travelling.

Field of vision: For anyone who has been paying attention to the numbers above, you will note that even with the iPhone Pro's three cameras, the focal range is still limited to 52mm, hardly a telephoto lens, as touted by Apple. This picture of the Decebalus rock sculpture was taken with my Canon at 83mm, and then cropped; a similar iPhone shot was far too wide to capture this detail. Since I don't fly with the heavier and larger 55-200mm zoom lens, it's not a fair comparison to judge the iPhone's lack of true telephoto capability. But often for buildings and architecture, you need a wide field of view and the iPhone's 13mm "ultrawide" lens is something that I can't replicate with my Canon - well, not without shelling out for another lens. Additionally, you can shoot in 16:9 frame format; with around 120 degrees of coverage, the ultrawide almost replicates one's actual field of vision (135 degrees).

Low-light: I deliberately did not do any post-production on this image of Budapest's Liberty Bridge and Statue (taken from a moving ship) to show how amazing the Canon's low light performance is. An older iPhone could never had captured this, but Apple's Night mode has pretty much put low light photography issues behind us. Yes, you could take night photos with my older iPhones by holding them steady, but for the most part, the iPhone decided how long to open the shutter for, and usually images were grainy. Now with all the processing power of the new phones, you don't necessarily need a tripod, and there are so many ways that you can use Night mode; I recommend that you watch a few Youtube videos or Google tutorials on the subject. I still haven't discovered all the ways that you can create unique photos with Night Mode on my iPhone 12 Pro.

Long exposure: Another feature that I use quite often is a long exposure, either for low-light shots as mentioned above, or capturing moving water. e.g. We were recently in Croatia and saw some amazing waterfalls, but you don't really capture the essence of them with a snapshot at 1/250th of a second. I was able to take amazing, smooth waterfall shots with my Canon, but I needed to use an Neutral Density filter to reduce the amount of light coming into the lens, forcing a longer exposure. But with the newer iPhones, did you know that you can use Live Photo to do the same photo effect? You still need to hold the iPhone steady or use a tripod of some sort, but who knew?

Weight/accessibility/ convenience: This is an obvious consideration; you can't take great pictures, if you don't have a camera with you. I found that the Canon's 18-55mm kit lens was the most versatile for travelling, but even in compact form, the combined weight is 495g; adding in the charger and extra batteries makes bringing along this camera not an insignificant encumbrance. Sure, when touring during the day, I usually have a travel bag (man purse) that I would put my mirrorless camera in, but if I don't need to take up the extra space, there's more room for snacks and whatever. In the evening, when out for dinner or taking in the evening sights, I don't typically bring my day bag, so those impressive night shots aren't going to get captured by my Canon anyways. She took this evening shot on the Stradun in Dubrovnik, because of course, I didn't have my camera with me. I will always have my new iPhone in my pocket, so this makes the burden of the mirrorless camera perhaps too much to bear?

My conclusion is that if you’ve got an iPhone 11 Pro or above (e.g. iPhone 13 Pro Max), and you’re not looking to make a living from your vacation pictures, then that’s probably all you need. So if I'm no longer going to travel with it, when will I be using my mirrorless camera and all it's lenses and pro features? Certainly long zoom environments will dictate using the 300mm lens, and nothing beats the clarity and image quality of the 22mm prime lens. And there is something about having a "camera" in your hand which puts me in a photographic frame of mind; i.e. I'm going out specifically with the purpose of taking pictures. And of course, where weight and space aren't an issue, I'll bring the full camera kit, to capture moments like this little baby chickadee that emerged from our bird house. In the end, the decision on whether to bring your professional DSLR or mirrorless camera along with you on your travels is up to you, but for my needs, I think I'll leave the Canon at home when my vacation travel takes me on the plane.