Armory Sponsor
Posted: 11/11/2014 11:22:01 AM EDT
| Why are they the diameter they are? I would think a larger diameter would give better FOV. Maybe weight gain would not be worth it to a head mount but a clip on might have a big improvement? Or is it economy of scale and so cheaper for 1 size only. |
|
Cost, weight and standardization greatly helps cost. The MX-10160 and MX-11769 are both the same tube module. Just different power supplies. 25mm tubes as in a PVS-4 are very durable but at a increase in cost, size and weight. They don't make the best tubes they can now on any large scale. The make a good cost effective tube that is standardized and can be mass produced. All of the manufacturers could make one-off super tubes but not mass produce them cost effectively.
All boils down to money. |
|
Smaller is better for most of our purposes, however there's limits to how much resolution can be obtained from a smaller tube - But a smaller tube means a smaller objective is required for the same level of magnification... Which is one of the reason the newer 16mm tubes are appearing. At the ocular end, it's all just optics. Anyway, it has worked out well for thermals, where Thermal FPA's improve each time they reduce the pixel pitch, and get the elements closer together - this then requires a smaller lens for the same magnification. Current thermals have the same resolution as older ones, but are about half the size and weight of even what was around 10 years ago. Regards David
|
Armory Sponsor