"Back In Compact"

[Otavio]

Hi. Just before my recent trip to Galápagos, I decided to buy a waterproof camera, to shoot/film underwater while snorkelling. Also, I wanted it to be a shock/dust proof/cheap/compact camera. Then I bought a Sony TF1. It is a 16Mp, 25 to 100mm focal length, ISO 100 to 1600. Except for the ridiculous battery duration, I liked it.
Well, this week I went downtown Rio de Janeiro, for a 2 days workshop (I live about 100 miles from there). So, as it was just a "2-days-business-trip", I only carried a backpack and put this camera inside it, to see what it could do. Well, I was reasonably happy with the images, considering: A) It is a small sensor camera; B) It has no manual controls, except ISO and EV; C) no tripod was carried/used.

So, although images are not great, why am I happy with them? Because this camera is really small and occupied almost no space, neither on my backpack nor inside my pocket, on the streets! So, it can be a complement for my main gear (D5200 + lenses).

Below are some of the images I got. The first 4 were shot through a vehicle glass window, from over the Rio-Niterói bridge, so there might be some reflections that I could not avoid. C&C welcomed, as always. Thanks for viewing!

1 - Guanabara Bay


2 - Sunset


3 - "Fundão" area


4 - Favela @ sunset time


5 - "Theatro Municipal"

5.1 - The Version with lamp cloned out, suggested by Binnur


6 - The "Cinelândia" subway station. To obtain the long exposure here, I held the camera over a balcony on stations's 2nd cloor, to minimize vibration and used ISO 100. As it is an indoor location, it was expected the camera would use a longer shutter speed to expose (due to ISO 100).


7 - The "Lapa" area. Well, here I had no balcony to use...


8 - Another angle of the Lapa arches

[Shadowman]

Nice captures, especially the city scenes. Theatro Municipal is my favorite. Are the people deliberately turning away from the camera? I thought Brazilians loved to be photographed.

[Otavio]

Nice captures, especially the city scenes. Theatro Municipal is my favorite. Are the people deliberately turning away from the camera? I thought Brazilians loved to be photographed.

Hello, John. Thanks for viewing and commenting. Regarding your question, I believe they even didnt see my taking the picture. Everybody seemed to be in their journey to work.

Cheers,

[bnnrcn]

Hi Otavio Very nice composition and colours in #1. What are the things on the upper left side of #5, lamp posts? They are a bit distracting but you have so good skills in PP that it wouldn't be a problem for you to clone them out

[Otavio]

Hi Otavio Very nice composition and colours in #1. What are the things on the upper left side of #5, lamp posts? They are a bit distracting but you have so good skills in PP that it wouldn't be a problem for you to clone them out

Hello, Binnur. Thanks for viewing and I am glad you liked it. Regarding the clone of the lamp, I thought about doing it at first, but was too lazy to do the clone! Shame on me!

Anyway, your wish is my command . Here it is and thanks for pointing that out. Kindest regards

[IzzieK]

Hi Otavio...my favourite is also the Theatro and the last shot of the ARch...All nice shots despite the compactness of the camera you brought...

[Brownbear]

Hi Otavio,

My favourites are the 1st (beautiful) and the Theatro.

I've been wondering about those cameras. Not only for photographing the beautiful fish and coral while snorkeling (hope you share some of these) but also for photographing the coastline from the ocean. If you're a swimmer I wonder if you would be inclined to swim out a bit and photograph the coastline, and share these with us. I'm also curious as to the quality of the images produced. ie; how large of a high quality print could you produce?

Thank you.

[Otavio]

Hi, Izzie. Thanks for your feedback! I appreciate it.

[Otavio]

Hi Otavio,

My favourites are the 1st (beautiful) and the Theatro.

I've been wondering about those cameras. Not only for photographing the beautiful fish and coral while snorkeling (hope you share some of these) but also for photographing the coastline from the ocean. If you're a swimmer I wonder if you would be inclined to swim out a bit and photograph the coastline, and share these with us. I'm also curious as to the quality of the images produced. ie; how large of a high quality print could you produce?

Thank you.

Thanks, Christina, for viewing and commenting. It is a good idea to use the camera to shoot the coastline from the water, though I would need to improve my swimming skills first .

Regarding the print size: This camera produces images @ 16Mp, using a 4:3 aspect ration, with 4,608 x 3,456 pixels. That makes a total of 15,925,248 pixels (16Mp). If you want to print with a resolution of 300 DPI, which is a good print quality, you would have 15,925,248 "dots" / 300 DPI = 53,084 square inches. Theoretically, this could print a 266 x 199 inches (6,76 x 5,07m) image. Of course this is just theoretical. There are many factors that will affect the quality at such a big size view/print, like focus, PP, chromatic aberrations, etc. It would be like viewing the image at 100% on your monitor, ie, many "defects" that are "hidden" would be revealled at maximum size! So, I dont know if you are after such a big size print, but, 16Mp can give you fairly big prints, anyway.

[NorthernFocus]

Nicely done, Otavio. First and foremost you picked great subject matter and the shots are well composed. The first two are really excellent. The second two suffer somewhat technically due to the limits of the equipment but are still nice images. The B/W night shot of the arches of course suffers from the camera shake and I prefer the color version anyway for both the lighting and colors.

A nice exhibition of not being trapped into thinking photography is only possible with more complicated gear.

[deetheturk]

Very nice images Otavio, if you had not told us, I would not have guessed these were from a compact, well done mate

[Brownbear]

Hi Otavio,

I love to swim and the view is always better from the water. I also love to snorkel and I've been reading about these waterproof cameras with great interest. A few years back while snorkeling I saw a stingray the size of a mid-sized car. If only I had a waterproof camera!

I can't imagine printing an image that was almost 7 meters long, so one of these cameras sounds very appealing and more than sufficient. Thank you for sharing!

Thanks, Christina, for viewing and commenting. It is a good idea to use the camera to shoot the coastline from the water, though I would need to improve my swimming skills first .

Regarding the print size: This camera produces images @ 16Mp, using a 4:3 aspect ration, with 4,608 x 3,456 pixels. That makes a total of 15,925,248 pixels (16Mp). If you want to print with a resolution of 300 DPI, which is a good print quality, you would have 15,925,248 "dots" / 300 DPI = 53,084 square inches. Theoretically, this could print a 266 x 199 inches (6,76 x 5,07m) image. Of course this is just theoretical. There are many factors that will affect the quality at such a big size view/print, like focus, PP, chromatic aberrations, etc. It would be like viewing the image at 100% on your monitor, ie, many "defects" that are "hidden" would be revealled at maximum size! So, I dont know if you are after such a big size print, but, 16Mp can give you fairly big prints, anyway.

[ST1]

Great set Otavio, well done and thank you for sharing the images

[Otavio]

Nicely done, Otavio. First and foremost you picked great subject matter and the shots are well composed. The first two are really excellent. The second two suffer somewhat technically due to the limits of the equipment but are still nice images. The B/W night shot of the arches of course suffers from the camera shake and I prefer the color version anyway for both the lighting and colors.

A nice exhibition of not being trapped into thinking photography is only possible with more complicated gear.

Thanks, Dan. I appreciate your feedback. Kindest regards,

[Otavio]

Hi Otavio,

I love to swim and the view is always better from the water. I also love to snorkel and I've been reading about these waterproof cameras with great interest. A few years back while snorkeling I saw a stingray the size of a mid-sized car. If only I had a waterproof camera!

I can't imagine printing an image that was almost 7 meters long, so one of these cameras sounds very appealing and more than sufficient. Thank you for sharing!

Wow, that was sure quite a ray, Christina! I saw many of them in Galápagos, but much smaller!

Regarding print size, I also think these 16Mp are quite sufficient. Anyway, before buying, Christina, I recommend that you keep reading about these cameras. As I mentioned, I wanted one with these features and a really compact and cheap one. I dont expect nothing "professional" from it, just records of moments in life (snorkelling, my son at a pool/beach, etc). There are more advanced waterproof cameras, though. Whatever waterproof you choose, it will be a great complement to your set, as you wont put your great D7100 under water (well, at least not withouth a waterproof case ). Good luck in your search.

Regards,

[Otavio]

Very nice images Otavio, if you had not told us, I would not have guessed these were from a compact, well done mate

Hi, David. Thanks for viewing and commenting. Well, these compacts can be a good complement. This one has got an exclusive front pocket of my DSLR's backpack!

Regards,

[MrB]

Regarding the print size: This camera produces images @ 16Mp, using a 4:3 aspect ration, with 4,608 x 3,456 pixels. That makes a total of 15,925,248 pixels (16Mp). If you want to print with a resolution of 300 DPI, which is a good print quality, you would have 15,925,248 "dots" / 300 DPI = 53,084 square inches. Theoretically, this could print a 266 x 199 inches (6,76 x 5,07m) image.

Otavio, you have mixed up linear and area measurements here. 300 pixels per inch is a linear measurement, so your calculation of theoretical print size at 300ppi should be 4608/300 by 3456/300 = 15.36 inches by 11.52 inches.

See https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...mera-pixel.htm

Cheers.
Philip

P.S. Nice images!

[Otavio]

Otavio, you have mixed up linear and area measurements here. 300 pixels per inch is a linear measurement, so your calculation of theoretical print size at 300ppi should be 4608/300 by 3456/300 = 15.36 inches by 11.52 inches.

See https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...mera-pixel.htm

Cheers.
Philip

P.S. Nice images!

Phillip, you're right, thanks for pointing it out. Cheers,

[John 2]

Missed these as well Otavio. These are a good example of how good photography will overcome technical shortcomings. A very nice set of images.

[Otavio]

Great set Otavio, well done and thank you for sharing the images

Hi, Peter. Thanks for your reply. Cheers,