Never owned one of these, and recently decided it was time to check them out. This marble business brings most of us picture-takers a lot closer to our
subject than we may have been used to before.
(Yes, I'm aware that there are several micro-biologists in our group, and that's why I said 'most of us'!)
A close-up or 'macro' filter is just like a pair of reading glasses for your camera. (It's not technically a 'filter', but looks identical and screws on to the front of your lens the same way, so that's what most people call them.) So like the glasses, it allows your camera to get physically closer to your subject (not a bad thing with marbles usually) and still be able to get sharp focus.
What I wanted to find out with this test is whether a photo would look 'better' using the filter to get closer in the first place, or not using it, and taking the shot from farther back, and then 'blowing it up' a little to get the same-sized end result. Most people have a feel for how the more you 'blow up' a picture the blank-ier it looks. But adding another piece of glass to that beautifully-engineered lens can degrade the final image as well, so I wanted to see what the bottom-line would be. So far the filter is doing better than I expected.
The first shot included here, should be *737, is with the filter.
The second shot, *740, is without.
Both of these are greatly magnified for testing purposes, beyond what I'd do in a normal photo, so neither looks really good. But the shot with the filter seems to look sharper, and would certainly make for a better 'normal' photo.
(Yes, I'm aware that there are several micro-biologists in our group, and that's why I said 'most of us'!)
A close-up or 'macro' filter is just like a pair of reading glasses for your camera. (It's not technically a 'filter', but looks identical and screws on to the front of your lens the same way, so that's what most people call them.) So like the glasses, it allows your camera to get physically closer to your subject (not a bad thing with marbles usually) and still be able to get sharp focus.
What I wanted to find out with this test is whether a photo would look 'better' using the filter to get closer in the first place, or not using it, and taking the shot from farther back, and then 'blowing it up' a little to get the same-sized end result. Most people have a feel for how the more you 'blow up' a picture the blank-ier it looks. But adding another piece of glass to that beautifully-engineered lens can degrade the final image as well, so I wanted to see what the bottom-line would be. So far the filter is doing better than I expected.
The first shot included here, should be *737, is with the filter.
The second shot, *740, is without.
Both of these are greatly magnified for testing purposes, beyond what I'd do in a normal photo, so neither looks really good. But the shot with the filter seems to look sharper, and would certainly make for a better 'normal' photo.
