To: rflrs{at}rcn.com,
        atm{at}shore.net
From: kwhitefire{at}juno.com
Reply-To: kwhitefire{at}juno.com


Richard Snashall wrote:

>>>Isn't the issue here what you want to do with it?  Why does it
need to be named?  If it is good enough to take great shots, why does it
matter if it is "aplanatic" according to some definition -- and
there are probably a number of those.

No, I'm not begging the question.  But I probably have my own definition of
a flat field as well, but it has nothing to do with the value of the field
curvature.

                Rick S.<<<

I want something that I can look into, using my eyes.  The image has to look good.

I also want something that I can attach a camera, and make that same image
look good on film.

In an extreme case, I want to aim it at a tree several miles away and see
the veins in the leaves, see the caterpillars munching on them, and watch
as a bird eats the caterpillar.  That's if you can catch me up and about
during the daytime.  Then there's the sun...  not without a full aperture
filter.

I don't want f/Snail or f/D so fast that my eyepiece has to cost $200 or more.

I don't want to have to focus at different points to see the edge.  The
fisheye look is out.

So I'm a firm believer in the Uniscope.  It's that mythical creature we all
dream about, what a perfect telescope would be.  What is it called?  That's
what I'll make.  If it's unknown, then I'll invent it.

Kevin of Eastern Iowa
Seeker of the Darkness




________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com

--- BBBS/NT v4.00 MP