Hello guys may I ask something here.



I dont know whether you guys can see it or not but I can see there are purple spots inside the lens. Is it fungus? 

hi all, 5d mark iii or 6d mark ii better?

Yep I just have one. Eureka RT48C. Can it infect to my other lens?  :confused:

Oh no, the RH meter on my dry box has showed this reading, sometime its goes way beyond 100 especially when after I opened the door for last few days eventhough I have set at M as recommended. Is the dry box is not functioning as it should? I just open the box and inside is feel kinda cold. Should I worried now? 

For photography.

Hi guys. Need help here regarding a problem im having with my canon eos 1000d.

My camera cannot autofocus using the Full Auto shot.

Tried swapping the lense with a friend of mine who also has an Eos 1000d and it works. My lens worked on his camera on  Full Auto and his lens worked on my camera on Full Auto.

I've reset the camera settings and the problem still persist.

I've tried googling it and no one seems to be having that problem

Any type of autofocus on any setting does not work except for manual focus.

One way it works right now (discovered it yesterday) is that if i set the lens to manual focus, lengthen the focus lens, go back to auto focus and press the button, it works.

Is it the autofocus mechanism?

Something from yesterday night

Guys, if anyone of you is using sigma 17-50 f2.8, des it have slow autofocus ? Because I just bought tamron 17-50 f2.8, and the autofocus sucks ...Sometimes it cannot focus, sometimes it focuses really really really slow....Was thinking of selling off the tamron and buy a sigma 17-50 , provided that sigma has no problem autofocusing as well.

haha u mean something like this? I didnt post because I hate the big lens flare

canon come out with mirrorless 4k video, m50

mirrorless ff with 4k soon?

then how come in the video the guy says "24mm best for getting all the background in for portrait photography" while "80mm best for getting bokeh and focusing only on the subject"?? if everything was achievable with a zoom lens or telephoto lens i dont think prime lenses would be necessary to begin with, no?

prime lenses aren't for everyone, trust me. i used to run 24mm, 50mm and 85mm, it was pain in the a$$ to change lenses all the time just for a short 30 mins portraiture session (unless your are one of those photographers who solely shoot with one focal length).

got myself a zoom lens and yes I do lose out on some image quality (which i dont mind at all, at the end of the day im not upload images at full resolution) and also less "bokeh" (the famous background blur) but i get to spend more time to focus on angles/ poses/ lightings which matter way more than image quality and bokeh.
im more surprised at the 120fps video capability, but it's confusing that some websites are claiming 120fps at 1080p while others are saying 120fps at 720p.

as for the price alone, i am guessing it will be around rm3k body alone (priced above m100 and under m6).

With a 24mm there isnt much bokeh though right? So can it be said that it can be replacable with a zoom lens? While 85mm for high bokeh. Though What determines the bokeh btw? I get the fact that its high focal length x lower f number = better bokeh. (I always thought lower f. number means better bokeh). but then how come i see people buying and selling f 2.8 lens and stuff. Sorry for noob questions again   

you are right on the logic, however bokeh isn't everything. i used to be obsessed with it and then i realized sometimes when you found a nice location with a nice surrounding, but then you shot it with the maximum amount of bokeh in mind (lets say at f1.8 all the time), you will blur out all the details and it made the location pointless and unrecognizable.
its 120fps at 720p (so far DPR is the only site who said 120fps at 1080p), not full HD but still usable for some shorter clips.

but if one were to focus on making video, the a6300 is avaiblable at rm3.6k body only and the video specs are so much better 

What Im wondering now is what does the f number alone determine on a photo. Like lets say focal length in mm determines distance (ie: how much of the frame/perception you can cover). So what would the difference be in say 24mm f1.8 vs 24mm f2.8. OR 85mm f1.8 vs 85mm f1.8. In this comparison am i right to say that the lower aperature is solely responsible for bokeh and nothing more? (given focal point is the same in both lenses)

Imo aperture itself doesnt affect depth of field. Focal length, distance from subject and subject's plane distance should be counted. My personal choice to have that sweet shallow dof would be telephoto 70-200 f2.8 lens.

To obtain the very shallow dof on wider frame, can try Brenizer method ie shooting multiple frame, and stitch them in photoshop.

Hi all sifu's, just want to ask, wat lens should i get for indoor weddings and potrait. no already have canon 40mm pancake..

Anyone can suggest me a Canon DSLR (with speedlite, 3rd party pun ok) under 5K for both (camera with kitlens + speedlite). Will be use for office work, take some event photos, etc. Thanks in advance guys