![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Stephen Wrote :
Gary was wrong. It happens when using the wrong tools and asking-or not asking-the appropriate questions. May all the pocket protectors...eject! Stephen Hello , This idea of the wrong tools used in the TMB optical review in S&T magazine in my way of thinking is incorrect . If the quality of any eyepiece cannot be fairly judged in a 6 inch F 9 reflector , a Questar 3.5 inch Mak. and a SV 85L refractor just what can we use to see the performance difference ? If one needs a larger telescope or a very expensive 6 inch apochromatic refractor too tell the difference then all high quality eyepieces are not worth the glass they are made from . The now well noted exclusion of the 5mm mono. in the test(he may have used it but I can find nothing in the artical about its use ) is the biggest procedural mistake in the review . And this exclusion comes as a surprise to me since high power is what these eyepieces are all about . Can someone tell me where I am wrong here ? Leonard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Review of TMB optical Monocentric eyepieces | Leonard | Amateur Astronomy | 284 | July 11th 04 06:36 PM |
Bands of Saturn. How many of them can be counted (really!) with 7" scope? | ValeryD | Amateur Astronomy | 294 | January 26th 04 08:18 PM |
Review: Bushnell Voyager 78-9440 (was Seeking review of BushnellVoyager line) | Glenn Holliday | Amateur Astronomy | 5 | November 17th 03 02:28 PM |
International Joint Mercury Exploration Mission 'BepiColombo' Moves to Next Stage after Review by SAC | Ron Baalke | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 20th 03 07:14 PM |