I wouldnt get a fisheye, they look ugly and very un-professional. That being said, if you set up the shot right and zoom in so you dent get a black circle around the immage, it looks good if you have high quality glass. And, if you correct in post you can get a pretty undistorted picture.
yeah.. i have a friend that uses a fisheye with his gl2 and it doesnt look that bad... now idk if i am right with this but.. i use to have a raynox .4 wide angle and had a +2 achromatic diopter screwed into the camera to help reduce distortion and allowed me to zoom partcially.. by doing this i am assuming it reduced my wide angle to a .6 wide angle? soo if i get the century optics .6 wide angle i should have a similar field of view as i did before at fullwide?
I do not know the front diameter for the .6 century. If you find a UV filter or something to go on there you should post a link, that would bee aa nicce.
well, 16mm can be also shoot in 60p wich is much better for action sport when you want slow mo, the action.
if you have de dvx100,, you can try even with 30p , if you would slow down,, but if you get something with 60p , and can afford it, it much better to get more info of the motion.
wow this is very strange, i just had my vx2000 stolen with a raynow, and the insurance said the same thing, and i was just about to ask the same question because i just bought a DVX100a, and i also make ski movies. cool
You can use 24p for sports films because, in a film, the cameraman knows exactly how the players are going to move and he can set up the camera to follow them or follow the ball.
You can't use them for live sports because you don't know how the players are going to move. The only way to make fast motion look good at 24p is to track the moving object perfectly, like Hollywood movies do. there's a good reason why sports shows on TV, unlike dramas, are not shot at 24p.
It's a big mistake to shoot a live sports event at 24p. A rookie-level mistake.