RMS v DIN Objectives
RMS v DIN Objectives
Is there a way to tell which microscopes use which of these standards for the objective lenses?
-
Scarodactyl
- Posts: 2787
- Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:09 pm
Re: RMS v DIN Objectives
Rms is just the thread on the objective. DIN is a broader spec which includes the thread (which is rms) as well as parfocal distance (45mm) and maybe some other things.
Re: RMS v DIN Objectives
WHAT IS WRITEN ON YOUR OBJECTIVES?
-
apochronaut
- Posts: 6314
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 12:15 am
Re: RMS v DIN Objectives
D.I.N. is a much overused terminology intended to bestow an aura of credibility upon cheap oriental microscopes that usually have minimal credibility.
China and India adopted D.I.N. parfocality (45mm) for all but really inexpensive student scopes about 4 decades ago and outside of that measurement all bets are off as to whether anything decent is inside the barrel or on the microscope itself.
Huckster on line sales brochures flood the minds of newbies with terms such as D.I.N., abbe, W.F., dual, interpupillary, diopter, coaxial, glass optics, achromatic and adjustable stage as lustworthy features when in reality any binocular microscope not possessing such features would be roughly equivalent to a car lacking windows that open, an air filter, spare tire, padded seats and a heater.
China and India adopted D.I.N. parfocality (45mm) for all but really inexpensive student scopes about 4 decades ago and outside of that measurement all bets are off as to whether anything decent is inside the barrel or on the microscope itself.
Huckster on line sales brochures flood the minds of newbies with terms such as D.I.N., abbe, W.F., dual, interpupillary, diopter, coaxial, glass optics, achromatic and adjustable stage as lustworthy features when in reality any binocular microscope not possessing such features would be roughly equivalent to a car lacking windows that open, an air filter, spare tire, padded seats and a heater.