<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title>Easy Exposure - Topic: Macro question</title>
	<link>http://easy-exposure.com/photo-forum/macro-photos/macro-question/</link>
	<description><![CDATA[Everything About Photography]]></description>
	<generator>Simple:Press Version 5.7.5.3</generator>
	<atom:link href="http://easy-exposure.com/photo-forum/macro-photos/macro-question/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        <item>
        	<title>easyexposure on Macro question</title>
        	<link>http://easy-exposure.com/photo-forum/macro-photos/macro-question/#p3441</link>
        	<category>Macro Photos</category>
        	<guid isPermaLink="true">http://easy-exposure.com/photo-forum/macro-photos/macro-question/#p3441</guid>
        	        	<description><![CDATA[<p>To be honest I was never into macto, but I think it is time to start. I just got 105mm and will be testing it soon. Stay tuned and you'll see a video about macro from me. And yes, macro lenses are sharper with more details and you can come much clothes to the subject. For example if lens says it is 1:1, it means that things will show up on the camera sensor their  life size. Let say something is 10mm. It will be 10mm on the camera sensor.</p>
]]></description>
        	        	<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:26:27 -0800</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
        	<title>FoghornLeghorn on Macro question</title>
        	<link>http://easy-exposure.com/photo-forum/macro-photos/macro-question/#p3433</link>
        	<category>Macro Photos</category>
        	<guid isPermaLink="true">http://easy-exposure.com/photo-forum/macro-photos/macro-question/#p3433</guid>
        	        	<description><![CDATA[<p>The macro lens is going to let you get closer and sharper and just do it better.<br />
but yea its gona cost my nikor 105mm was $984</p>
]]></description>
        	        	<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:14:47 -0800</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
        	<title>Bjørn (Madman) on Macro question</title>
        	<link>http://easy-exposure.com/photo-forum/macro-photos/macro-question/#p3426</link>
        	<category>Macro Photos</category>
        	<guid isPermaLink="true">http://easy-exposure.com/photo-forum/macro-photos/macro-question/#p3426</guid>
        	        	<description><![CDATA[<p>Well.. One thing is that on a macro you can zoom and come very close to the object after the foto is taken, and it will still be a good pic. You can take a pic. with a "normal" lens and zoom in so you get a macro, but it will be a bad one, it will start to show pixels..</p>
]]></description>
        	        	<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:09:03 -0800</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
        	<title>Eric on Macro question</title>
        	<link>http://easy-exposure.com/photo-forum/macro-photos/macro-question/#p3423</link>
        	<category>Macro Photos</category>
        	<guid isPermaLink="true">http://easy-exposure.com/photo-forum/macro-photos/macro-question/#p3423</guid>
        	        	<description><![CDATA[<blockquote>
<p><strong>Mandrake said </strong></p>
<p>I've never used a macro either, Eric so I'm also waiting to hear.<br />
I would guess that with a macro you can focus at a much shorter distance.</p>
<p>Mandrake</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Me too, but what does a macro give as a gain compared to zooming in.. there has to be something, some macro lens are sooo expensive..</p>
]]></description>
        	        	<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:55:42 -0800</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
        	<title>Mandrake on Macro question</title>
        	<link>http://easy-exposure.com/photo-forum/macro-photos/macro-question/#p3422</link>
        	<category>Macro Photos</category>
        	<guid isPermaLink="true">http://easy-exposure.com/photo-forum/macro-photos/macro-question/#p3422</guid>
        	        	<description><![CDATA[<p>I've never used a macro either, Eric so I'm also waiting to hear.<br />
I would guess that with a macro you can focus at a much shorter distance.</p>
<p>Mandrake</p>
]]></description>
        	        	<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:33:58 -0800</pubDate>
        </item>
        <item>
        	<title>Eric on Macro question</title>
        	<link>http://easy-exposure.com/photo-forum/macro-photos/macro-question/#p3408</link>
        	<category>Macro Photos</category>
        	<guid isPermaLink="true">http://easy-exposure.com/photo-forum/macro-photos/macro-question/#p3408</guid>
        	        	<description><![CDATA[<p>It might sound like a stupid question but there's something puzzling me for a while..<br />
Having used point and shoots all my life using the same camera for any situations, all my previous cameras had a macro button(flower) wich permits to get very close to an object to snap it.. Since i have my dslr and no macro lens, I can be at about a feet of the object and zoom in until i get approximately the same result..</p>
<p>Now my real question is how will the picture be different from a real macro lens, compared to my regular lens zoomed in?<br />
As an example, how will this picture be different or better if it had been taken with a macro lens?</p>
<p><img src="http://easy-exposure.com/wp-content/sp-resources/forum-image-uploads/echarbon/2013/01/1-IMG_1258.jpg" alt="1-IMG_1258.jpg" width="1024" height="683" /></p>
]]></description>
        	        	<pubDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:46:19 -0800</pubDate>
        </item>
</channel>
</rss>