Does this MONSTRUOSITY really exist?

TuxXtreme said:
maybe kinda exagerated on monstruosity.

But this: 2000mm Telescope for Canon Rebel XS XSi XTi T1i 5D 50D en vente sur eBay.fr (fin le 22-oct.-09 23:00:00 Paris)

makes you think a bit. cn this really exist? and at a so low price? or am I just ingnorant for not knowing these mothers existed?
Click to expand...
I saw this some time ago and looked into it, even tracked down someone on ebay that bought one to get their opinion of it. He said he bought it hoping to get bird pics and moon pics and so on. He then said he used it a couple of times to test it out, but the images were so bad that he didn't even bother to try to use it again after testing. He said it's useless to him and was money that was basically just thrown away.

I read the same kinds of opinions elsewhere on forums and so on, so I passed.

Remember the old sayings: "If it's too good to be true, it probably is", "you can't get something for nothing" and "you get what you pay for" - and maybe less than what you paid for in this case.

Here's another good one: "Buyer beware!"
 
J. U. N. K. Nowhere could I see what the aperture equivalent was, but I'm guessing probably something like f11; likely has molded plastic (or if you're reallllllly lucky glass) elements, and with a 6lb weight, you're going to need a SOLID tripod.
 
The aperture is listed in the specifications: Ouverture:F13

I tell you, at the price they are asking, it can't be a very good catadioptric lens. It's simply too cheap.
 
tirediron said:
J. U. N. K. Nowhere could I see what the aperture equivalent was, but I'm guessing probably something like f11; likely has molded plastic (or if you're reallllllly lucky glass) elements, and with a 6lb weight, you're going to need a SOLID tripod.
Click to expand...

And a solid trash can to throw it in. When you realize you get better shots out of a holga
 
tirediron said:
J. U. N. K. Nowhere could I see what the aperture equivalent was, but I'm guessing probably something like f11; likely has molded plastic (or if you're reallllllly lucky glass) elements, and with a 6lb weight, you're going to need a SOLID tripod.
Click to expand...
No bout adoubt it! Plastic elements or, at the very leat cheap flawed glass elements with no real QC on the grinding of the glass. No where did I see a guaranteed wave front, since they stated it was a telescope and, that is an important aspect. Actually claims a Dawes Limit of 1.3 arc seconds which is highly doubtful. The Dawes Limit tells you how well it will split multiple stars, it actually the a standard for resolving power.
I know the Chinese labor costs are low but, they arent that low.
 
tirediron said:
J. U. N. K. Nowhere could I see what the aperture equivalent was, but I'm guessing probably something like f11; likely has molded plastic (or if you're reallllllly lucky glass) elements, and with a 6lb weight, you're going to need a SOLID tripod.
Click to expand...

Talking bout' tripods... I was kinda surprised it didn't ship with a machinegun-tripod. It would definitely go with the look of the thing (and you'd get arrested often)
 
usayit said:
Don't know much about those but you could probably get better results from a celestron telescope adapted to accept a camera.
Click to expand...

Looks like a kinda amateur-shananigan. Guess he had an old telescope...
 
TuxXtreme are you really surprised it exists? I don't know a quality telescope manufacturer who doesn't provide adapters for camera mounts. As far as telescopes go this is a toy and not a monstrosity.

Also any one else notice the image of the moon that was posted looks about the same size as a picture taken with a 200mm lens, not a 2000mm?
 
Garbz said:
TuxXtreme are you really surprised it exists? I don't know a quality telescope manufacturer who doesn't provide adapters for camera mounts. As far as telescopes go this is a toy and not a monstrosity.

Also any one else notice the image of the moon that was posted looks about the same size as a picture taken with a 200mm lens, not a 2000mm?
Click to expand...
Yeah I did notice that but, hell with all the rest of the marvelous claims I let it go. At 2000 it should have shown crater detail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Where do the pros print? repost

< Previous Thread

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/1.8

Next Thread >

Most reactions

New Topics

TPF Gallery Photos

There's a number in the top of the body 5453
That Smile
1991-DSC_1185
Sedge Warbler
Christy Donahue
116-old
4626-tree
John Torcasio: Portrait
Through the Sagebrush 1 of 4.jpg
WhatsApp Image 2022-04-14 at 10.55.38 AM (1).jpeg
[No title]
116-File3724
Back
Top