Inexpensive way to take "Fisheye" photos

[backtrail69]

not the same as a real fish eye...but it's cool in the "wow, who thought of that" kind of way.

I agree totally.

[Maluco]

I would not have imagined this post would have created a debate on the quality of the resulting pictures. Much less imagined they would have been compared to that of even entry-level equipment. I imagine Popular Science's reason for including it was, that for $7, phucking around with it until you get possibly a semi-decent faux-fisheye shot is cool enough for those who have no other option.

[dom]

on a side note, maluco, your sig is huge.

[JasonC]

Is that his sig? cause it ain't in any of his other post.. I also thought it was his sig at 1st too.

[backtrail69]

Well it is an original Bimmer...

[Maluco]

on a side note, maluco, your sig is huge.

yeah, it is a little big however not much more than most of you guys' sig pic + space + quote.... I'll probably bring it down some. I wanted to get as much as possible with out taking up too much. Also, I'm on a 21" widescreen which causes me to see things a little differently.

[Digitalwave]

The sig is more than twice the allowed width stated in the forum rules.

[sumyungguy]

acknowledgement: yeah - 'real' lenses on 'real' cameras will blow the doors off point-and-shoots

Very well put...

The peep hole lense is a pretty good idea but I dont have any cameras with that small of a sensor.. thats definitely not a bad thing :)