Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
GlennLeDrew
professor emeritus
Reged: 06/18/08
Posts: 620
Loc: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
|
Re: Undersized prisms - the myth
06/19/08 12:25 AM
|
|
|
Edz,
I've modified, designed and built binos for years, and am quite aware of the issues regarding physical dimensions based on optical components used. I just didn't think it was germain to this discussion about the optics, it being obvious that a designer would lay out the instrument accordingly before manufacturing components.
But as we all know, the manufacturer strives for compactness and light weight, and hence chooses the shortest f/ratio objectives he can get away with in order to address those more overriding concerns.
Again, he could stay with the same prism set, but choose a slightly longer objective (and suitable ocular for the desired magnification) and then design the body accordingly. The result would be an instrument which works at full aperture. But as it is he offers instead an instrument which might as well have a smaller diameter objective and hence slightly lighter weight. But then, of course, he could not boast of having that larger, but partly useless, objective.
--------------------
Home-made 11X50 right angle bino, 8.1 deg. FOV
Modified 26X100 bino, 3.5 deg. FOV
Mediocre minds discuss people. Good minds discuss events. Great minds discuss ideas.
|
|
7 registered and 18 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: EdZ
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Rating:
Thread views: 1127
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Flat
Edit
Reply
Quote
