.25 Black-Eye lens VS .30 Royal???????

[mikeee 0]

looking for someone w/personal experience involving the WayCool Black-Eye, AND the Royal .3O.
I'm looking to find out if the Black-Eye is really worth the extra dollars( both cost, and shipping) for handi-cam. I'm currently using both a Century Optics "tuna- can" .3X, and a Black-Eye. BOTH provide good "product", but I'm looking toward the time I've got to replace one, or the other. Any suggestions?????????

crazy, NOT stupid............

[Dokeman 0]

the .25 lens's make all the difference in handicam. They are considerably wider than the .3's

[mikeee 0]

ok- i've got 2 identical cameras- one w/the tuna-can(.3x), one w/the Black-Eye. in actual use, the tuna-can gives better "lighting", w/no evident loss of "field of view". of course the tuna-can IS twice the diameter. what i need to know is: how does to smaller .30 compare with the Black-Eye???

crazy, NOT stupid............

[Kimblair13 0]

Quote

the .25 lens's make all the difference in handicam. They are considerably wider than the .3's

And the Platinum .2 from Royal is significantly wider than a black-eye. For hand cam I think it's the best way to go hands down.

[Dokeman 0]

well.. a cookie .25, a royal .2, and the waycool blackeye .25 are all pretty much the same lens. Neither is going to be any wider or narrower than the other. They all offer 180 degree field of view. When they advertise lens, the .3, .45, .5 or whatever are just general measurements. Im sure royal just named theirs a .2 just to sound wider than the other offerings. What does make a difference is the camera you are attaching it to. Some camera's are wider than others without a wide angle lens. So when you attach a wide angle lens it just magnifies the wide angle of the camera more. Thats why some peoples video look wider than others with the same lens.

[skydiveoc 0]

Quote

well.. a cookie .25, a royal .2, and the waycool blackeye .25 are all pretty much the same lens. Neither is going to be any wider or narrower than the other. They all offer 180 degree field of view. When they advertise lens, the .3, .45, .5 or whatever are just general measurements. Im sure royal just named theirs a .2 just to sound wider than the other offerings. What does make a difference is the camera you are attaching it to. Some camera's are wider than others without a wide angle lens. So when you attach a wide angle lens it just magnifies the wide angle of the camera more. Thats why some peoples video look wider than others with the same lens.

I disagree wholeheartedly...Ive used them all and Kim has it right. I have a PC 1000. Had royal .3's, cent optics .3 (man that thing is heavy) a Black eye, BE X, now have a .2 royal. .2 is the widest and clearest after on camera comparison. Makes handy image way better. I can frame the students feet in the center most of the time. I would recommend getting a 37 mm lens and put an adapter (step down) Seems to make it even wider with no vignette with the 1000.

You will see in photo for sale my blackeye x and black eyes for sale because I have bought 2 royal .2's for my handy set up!

[RM1 0]

Sorry dokeman but you are definitely wrong about the 3 being almost the same. My personal experience is that the .2 royal is definitely wider than the blackeye with less vignetting even on a wide format hc5. I found the blackeye to have cleaner edges however the royal has a cleaner center. One problem with the royal is that the lens sticks out in the center so i would figure it will be more prone to scratches however i have none on mine. I used a .3 cookie for sometime and had good success with it on a trv22 but i knew a guy who used the same lens in a smaller ring diameter (correct size for the camera) and it was not nearly wide enough.

[Parky1 0]

I use the .25 from waycool for BASE and it is mega.

If your not up close and personal, consider something a little more shallow.