Will somebody who knows more please check me on this line of reasoning. I particularly want to know if my premises are off the mark.
1. With a given magnification and a given aperture, exit pupil is determined: field size, apparent or actual makes no difference to exit pupil size.
2. In a comparison of two EPs, one with a larger field, and one with a smaller field, but both with the same focal length, and hence the same exit pupil size, any given resolvable detail will have a smaller image size in the wide-field EP, because the wide-field EP fits more stuff into the same-size exit pupil.
3. So maybe planetary observers can get larger image scales for tiny planetary details simply by using narrow-field EPs instead of Naglers and Panoptics.
Anything wrong with this?
Steve
1. With a given magnification and a given aperture, exit pupil is determined: field size, apparent or actual makes no difference to exit pupil size.
2. In a comparison of two EPs, one with a larger field, and one with a smaller field, but both with the same focal length, and hence the same exit pupil size, any given resolvable detail will have a smaller image size in the wide-field EP, because the wide-field EP fits more stuff into the same-size exit pupil.
3. So maybe planetary observers can get larger image scales for tiny planetary details simply by using narrow-field EPs instead of Naglers and Panoptics.
Anything wrong with this?
Steve