Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamPaolini
I agree. This is very true. If all one looks at is the central 40 degrees of AFOV than a *good* Abbe Ortho is as good as just about anything out there...excepting a better Abbe of course  But I think this trivializes the importance of AFOV and ER. IMO Optical Performance, ER, and AFOV all come bundled like three legs of a stool. Cut any one leg off and you potentially have a "specialty" stool. So when people ask advice or there are discussions, all three really have to be considered and weighed together as it is the whole package that is required for observing.
I have wide fields with nice ER, and I have *good* Orthos. When I try to observe with just the Orthos, after a few sessions I try a wide field and realize well why I would not want to be stuck with just Orthos as my observing eyepieces. Then when I observe with just wide fields, after a few sessions that involve lunar and planetary, then I realize why I would not want to be stuck with just wide fields. In my course I have realized that for me, they compliment each other rather than compete. The DeLites though, are IMO the first eyepiece that seemingly *starts* to bridge that gap. |
Bill, while I quite like your review and would consider it valuable to anyone considering these EPs, I respectfully disagree with your chair/stool analogy. I can't see how ER and AFOV could possibly be of the same importance as optical performance. Rather, I'd class the latter as the legs and seat of the chair, with eye relief and apparent field of view corresponding to things like armrests, padding, heating coils in the seat, social media connectivity of the seat and so on - you get the idea. Omit optical performance - the legs and the seat - and the whole thing is all but useless. The same is not true for the other two things.