Re: 1.25" v's 2" accessories
- From: Joe Bergeron <jabergeron@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 01 Jan 2006 14:54:57 GMT
In article <1136066260.310511.306810@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Starboard <errol_winn@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks for the detailed explanation. Didn't realize that eye piece
> diameter could be subjective. I was expecting someone to say (based on
> prior warnings I've read to avoid .96" eye pieces) that bigger is
> better for physical reasons. I chalk it up as a lesson learned.
The reason for the warning about .96" eyepieces is that they're usually
made for cheap scopes and are cheap themselves, not because there's
anything deadly about that barrel diameter. It would be quite possible
to make fine eyepieces of that diameter, and I'm sure there are a few
examples floating around. The disadvantage is that their field of view
would be limited in longer focal length designs. Big barrel diameters
don't guarantee superior eyepieces. Many of the finest (and in some
cases widest apparent field) eyepieces come in 1.25" barrels.
--
Joe Bergeron
http://www.joebergeron.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: 1.25" v's 2" accessories
- From: Starboard
- Re: 1.25" v's 2" accessories
- Prev by Date: Re: Some amateurs just sicken me.....
- Next by Date: Re: OT (sort of) What's yer sign? ;-)
- Previous by thread: Re: 1.25" v's 2" accessories
- Next by thread: Re: 1.25" v's 2" accessories
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
