Talk:Eyepiece

message: 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)
thread_title: Optical Details of Eyepiece

message: 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 !
* Olympus Microscopy Resource Center  Anatomy of a Microscope - Eyepieces (Oculars) touches on the subject
* Mic-UK [site A] Nature Center Microscope with Darkfield Capability - Fig 4 is a nice example
---19S.137.93.171 (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compensating Eyepiece 

message: 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 79.233.252.179 (talk) 17:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ray paths through nagler eyepieces are wrong 

message: The final paragraph of the introduction states: 
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)
thread_title:  Unsourced and incorrect statement at end of intro - removing. 

message: The notion that Albert Nagler "invented" the style of eyepiece he patented in 1979 &1981 is based on his claim.
This design of eyepiece can be seen in prior patents cited in Nagler's patent application.
Those of Wright Scidmore & Hörst Köhler.
Nagler persists he knew nothing of Köhler's or Scidmore's work yet he was in charge of various simulator projects at the same company and same time they were working there in a senior capacity.
Nagler's claim is tantamount to saying he independently re-invented this eyepiece.
Another Zeiss lens designer, Hans Tronnier produced a similar design way back in 1944, in a 25x100 binocular.
The idea dates back to Abbé and even earlier, mid C19th.
This text requires ammendments.
See Zeiss Optical Designers Handbook by Herbert Gross Vol. 4. Section on eyepieces.
Delete all references to Nagler, insert references to Köhler, Tronnier & Scidmore as the true inventors.
Chris Lord Lordcjr (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nagler 

message: It seems peculiar that none of the individual eyepiece designs is seen to merit its own page, when some of them could clearly merit more in-depth discussion. This would help address the relatively low quality of the pages without cluttering it. Perhaps the right first step would be to give significant design(e.g. Ortho, Kelner, Huygens, Plossl) a page with a redirect until such time as they are expanded? Or just copy across each ep's section to a new article with a suitable preface? Stub Mandrel (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual Eypiece  Design Pages