or you could just do it the non-retard way, and look at your camera, find the filter thread diameter, then find a fisheye lens with the same diameter... or one with a similar diamter and get a step down/up ring... not exactly rocket science...
awesomely, my way worked when i bought my fisheye, my wideangle, my telephoto, and my 3 filters...

oh, even better, don't use a digital camera... film is the way to go... but that's even more manual labour than simply trying to find a fisheye...

I've been doing it that way ever since I got my cameras?

i've shot tons of 35mm shots, but the quality just isn't where i want it. 35mm SLR never had the vivid colors that i was looking for. with a 6 megapixel digital camera, i could beat your 35mm any day. plus, editing is so much easier. don't spend hours in the dark room with test strips, ruining photo paper, etc. i buy 1 camera, 1 memory stick, and use photoshop if needed.

and then if i want the pictures displayed, i either upload them to my digital picture frame (w00t) or print them off at shutterfly.

plus you can always take your film to a photolab and have them use a digital film reader to convert your photos into image files of whatever sise you want, as opposed to digital where your file's dimensions are limited to your camera's capabiltities. Once on your computer you can edit the photos easily, not to mention the crispness, colors, etc. of a film camera are MUCH MUCH greater than that of any current digital cameras. Right now I'm use a 4.0MP Nikon 4300, and a 5.0MP Sony that belongs to my friend... both are nice, and digital is convience, and in most cases I'd probably use digital over film because of this... but I'd still rather save up for a Hassleblad film camera for those shots that have to be perfect.

regardless, 35mm film is a small, small frame and the larger you blow it up, the more grain it's going to have. i admit that grain can be cool if used correctly, i've taken several grainy shots on purpose with my my minolta (maxxum 5) SLR and loved them. i've also taken lots of non-grainy shots with it. but still, the larger the picture... even at 8x10 they start to get grainy.

with digital, however, i could take pictures with a resolution setting almost as low as 1600x1200 and have no grain (or pixelation) visible. so then i decide to take pictures at at least twice that, and i can print crystal clear posters.

i'm assuming these magazines also realize that there a LOT of shitty digital cameras out there... so the range of digital pictures that they get is going to be really broad. but 35mm is all the same size... so their quality difference is going to be much narrower (physical quality/graininess). thus, they will be safer by asking for film only; there will be no 640x480 cellphone pictures submitted.

if i were to shoot on a standard film with an SLR and want quality pictures, i'd use a medium format camera.

but whatever, this same argument has been had a thousand times before and both arguments are going to have their advantages. i just think that everything that can be done with a film SLR can be done with digital cameras... faster, cheaper, and usually even better.

Also, compare the size of a CCD to the size of 35mm film, and the fact that a CCD pixel is huge in comparison to a particle of photosensitive film

film is the way to go my friend. i also use a maxxum 5. i wanna get a 7 or 9 later on down the road. when i get better.

ps: if you are going to shoot film, medium format probably is the way to go... however developing can be inconvient to it's lesser popularity and more expensive processing... but 35mm is still better than digital IMO

I beg to differ about what magazines accept... although a lot of photographers still shoot with film, I've never heard of a magazine that doesn't accept digital aslong as it's shot at high enough quality. Just pick up an SLR camera magazine like 'What Camera?' and you'll find loadsa articles on high profile photographers who have their work featured in magazines all the time who've decided to switch to digital.

Personally, I'm sticking with film for now, although I guess the proof is in the pudding... the fact that Kodak have completely ceased production of 35mm cameras is an indicator that they're placing their trust in digital.

My dad's Canon SLR is about 25 years old and it still does the job amazingly well