From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Glass  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glass, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of glass on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
WikiProject Astronomy (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon Eyepiece is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Eyepiece:
  • Describe types of eyepieces and advantages of each
  • Add a picture
    • General Photo
    • schematic of focal plane
  • Add more eyepiece properties:
    • Chromatic aberration
    • Compensating (See below)
    • Flatness of field
    • Panoptic lens type description
  • Add links and references
  • List use of filters(Not neccessarily used with eyepieces(ie. film, CCD, projection))
    • Colour
      • Mars(Yellow,Orange,Red)
      • Saturn/Jupiter (Red,Yellow)
    • H-α
    • Polarization

Optical Details of Eyepiece[edit]

I would like to see some details about how the eyepiece works with the human eye and how that differs from a sensor. A ray diagram would be very helpful. neffk (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Compensating Eyepiece[edit]

Would be good to have an explanation of Compensating Eyepieces - under-corrected for chromatic aberration (Ramsden ?), to match an over-corrected objective ('Plan' ?). (Or is over/under the other way round ?) Pretty common in old, simple, cheap microscopes. Also seen in cheap spotting telescopes - eg my Meade/Bresser 25-70x90. Orange ring at edge of visual field is the give-away !

---19S.137.93.171 (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

ray paths through nagler eyepieces are wrong[edit]

The path should at first go upwards, away from the axis (coming from an object point below the axis), then be refracted more upwards by the first (negative) group. As depicted now, the eyepiece would invert the image, compared to a usual eyepiece, since the ray fan moving down, toward the axis, leaves the eyepiece in the same direction (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced and incorrect statement at end of intro - removing.[edit]

The final paragraph of the introduction states:

Modern research-grade telescopes and microscopes do not use eyepieces. Instead, they have high-quality CCD sensors mounted at the focal point, and the images are viewed on a computer screen. Some amateur astronomers use their telescopes the same way, but direct optical viewing with eyepieces is by far the most common.

— Author, parent wiki page

which is unsourced and simply false in the case of microscopes. I've spent most of the past 15 yrs in research, much of it involving microscopy to some degree or another and some of it at the cutting edge of optical methods in biology. With one exception, every optical microscope I've used or seen in person has had oculars. That one exception was a device built by myself and a graduate student for a very specific task - and we both wished it had been feasible to include oculars in addition to the computerized acquisition system. A big part of the reason is that camera/detector tech still doesn't have the combination of speed and resolution to match the direct optical path for rough focusing, adjustment, sample navigation, etc. Related, it's also very convenient to have a source of feedback on your operations present at the scope itself for manual manipulation of samples and the like.

While it is true that a large fraction of current microscope systems do have some kind of camera/detector system integrated or attached to facilitate documentation and recording of experiments, it is not true that these sensors have completely supplanted the humble oculars. For this reason I'm inclined to remove the paragraph - it doesn't seem to add much anyway. It probably is true that most true research telescopes no longer have oculars, though, although I doubt it's accurate to state that they all have "CCDs" given the diversity of modern sensors. If anyone feels it's important to bring this paragraph back, please remove "and microscopes" from the first line - and please provide a source!

Pyrilium (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2015 (UTC)