Would Nikon release new telescopes?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Aug 26, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Aug 26, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    It is 102 degree apparent field of view which is huge and requires a lot
    of glass to implement it. Until fairly recently 84 degree was widest and
    many common eyepieces are only 44 degree AFOV.

    I can't see Nikon bothering to reenter this game with the likes of
    Vixen, Takahashi, Pentax and Borg already having sewn up the domestic
    market across all the price range. There isn't room for another player.

    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Aug 26, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Twibil Guest

    This will come as a shock to Al Nagler.

    There's always room for another player if they bring a better
    mousetrap to the game.
    Twibil, Aug 26, 2010
  4. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    No not really. You need a 2" diameter eyepiece tube to use them.

    There is a rule of thumb that magnification can range from about 3.5 to
    40x per inch of aperture. These super wide eypieces allow you to observe
    a bigger chunk of sky at a higher magnification.

    When you look into the eyepiece you see an apparent field of view that
    extends to 100 degrees across. This is wider than most people can
    concentrate on! I haven't tried an eyepiece in this new class, but then
    I don't really like the 84 degree ones that much.

    High magnification improves contrast in that the stars stay essentially
    unresolved points and the light pollution gets spread out. I have one 84
    degree AFOV eyepiece and a couple of high end Pentax 70 degree ones. I
    much prefer the latter.

    The fashion is for the "space walk" experience and these very expensive
    eyepieces are impressive to look through even if they are jam jar sized
    or bigger. I find that some of the widest ones there is enough
    distortion to be distracting. Televue Panoptics and the Pentax series
    are my personal favourites although TV Naglers have their fans.


    Worth looking at the weights! You do need a fairly hefty telescope mount
    and focuser. Then there are loads of clones of the designs.
    There is even more emphasis on light transmission and ghosting for astro
    optics. You tend to be looking at a mostly dark field with a very bright
    planetary disk in it in the most demanding situation. And with some
    eyepieces the reflection off your eyeball can be a distraction!

    Nikon still have parts of the microscope business, but I honestly can't
    see them going back into telescope making now.

    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Aug 26, 2010
  5. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Check out TeleVue Ethos or Explorer Scientific 100 deg. eyepieces.
    RichA, Aug 26, 2010
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I tend to agree and although some would LOVE Nikon to release new
    orthos, that is a smaller niche in a small market.
    RichA, Aug 26, 2010
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Leave no niche unturned. Just get rid of the back optics of their ED
    spotters, improve the ED glass to FPL-53 or equivalent and put
    Feathertouch focusers on the tube. Voila! New Nikons.
    RichA, Aug 26, 2010
  8. RichA

    Twibil Guest

    Twibil, Aug 26, 2010
  9. A perfect example of a fatally flawed business model.
    Michael Benveniste, Aug 27, 2010
  10. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    Microscope eyepieces are typically 24.5mm and fairly high quality -
    through you can buy cheap nasty ones that are supplied with Chinese
    department store scopes.

    The 2" fit is only needed for the longer focal lengths and wide field
    combined - which allows you to see the largest possible filed of view
    that the telescope can deliver. At higher magnifications the eyepiece
    field stop gets progressively smaller and when it is less than 1" you
    could in principle use such eyepieces with a microscope.

    Most telescopes will fully illuminate 35mm film frame and the better
    ones will do 6cm film. These days most people use CCD.
    It is only an issue when you want the lowest magnification and maximum
    possible field of view of the object under study. There can be some real
    mileage in having a higher magnification wider apparent field of view in
    astronomy since sky brightness goes down whilst unresolved stars remain
    points of light (ie visual contrast is improved). I don't think this
    would hold in microscopy except possibly for fluorescence work.

    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Aug 30, 2010
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.