Jump to content

Banner.jpg.b89429c566825f6ab32bcafbada449c9.jpg

Don't be tempted by this .....

John

Recommended Posts

John

John

Posted
Posted

I don't normally do this but this scope being advertised on e.bay has so much about it TO AVOID that I thought I'd post a link as a warning:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Zoomion-Telescope-Genesis-200-EQ-/192072882127?hash=item2cb86f97cf:g:kyAAAOSw-0xYcY8d

There are so many things wrong with this £290 scope that I can't list them all. I think it's summed up by the label on the scope which, if you zoom into the photo shows this :rolleyes2:

 

s-l1600.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 39
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Dave In Vermont

Dave In Vermont

Posted
Posted

What a crock

Good catch, John. Posting this sort of post should  not only be tolerated by the 'Powers-That Be' - but encouraged. Perhaps craft a new mini-forum for this sort of rip-off. As well as to report such to whoever is allowing it to run. E-Bay UK in this instance.

<snarl>

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brantuk

brantuk

Posted
Posted

Well the first thing that jumps out from the label in the linked picture is that it claims to be a "Newton Refractor Telescope". A refractor uses a glass objective lens and Newtonian scope uses a primary and secondary mirror. So it's obviously a contradiction in terms, as bad as referring to a car as a motor scooter. A clear sign the seller has no idea what they're talking about. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
brantuk

brantuk

Posted
Posted

No focal length stated - like not knowing the cc's or bhp of a car. It does say it's f-4 which means it's fl=800mm. I have grave doubts about the effectiveness of the included plossl eyepieces - I think the views if any will be naff - even on a good quality scope that fast.

Some spec on the coatings would be useful and it just has a very tacky description that concentrates on telling the purchaser how wonderful it is with no real guts in the wording. It's a cheap box shifter looking for instant profit for sure. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dave In Vermont

Dave In Vermont

Posted
Posted

It just plain stinks - start to finish. The copy serves to tell me this guy should stick with writing ad-copy like he likely did before. You know the one: BIG 9995X POWER!! SEE CRATER ON JUPYTER!! <insert picture of M31 here> SEE ET'S HOUSE!! FOOTPRINT ON MOON!! ONLY ONE LEFT - CALL NOW!!

And other such gems!

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ronin

ronin

Posted
Posted

"Newton Refractor Telescope"

At last, an end to the arguement between Reflector or Refractor, can have both :icon_biggrin::icon_biggrin:. Peace and contentment will reign in the field of astronomy :hello2::hello2:.

Gone up to £311.39 now :eek:.

200mm f/4, notice I cannot see the word "parabolic", sure that "ultra stable" tripod is bending under the strain.

Have to say, both  a chuckle and a scare, someone is likely to have bought one, any guesses where they could come to get solutions to problems they encounter ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DRT

DRT

Posted
Posted

A little digging reveals that this seller is based in Israel and seems to deal in almost every category on Ebay. Here is a link to his telescope products, most of which are mainstream brands but all at the lower end of the food chain: http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/Telescopes/74927/m.html?item=192072882127&rmvSB=true&hash=item2cb86f97cf%3Ag%3AkyAAAOSw-0xYcY8d&clk_rvr_id=1150476443979&_ssn=fr.blec&_sac=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jabeoo1

jabeoo1

Posted
Posted

Just add a polar scope and you can have accurate astrophotography via your SLR.  If I had known all along it was that simple I wouldn't have stuck with visual only ! 

Amazing how easy it is these days to make every photon count. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John

John

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Apart from the manfacturers label, the pitfalls with the scope include:

- What are likely to be 200mm F/4 optics. Very hard to produce good quality mass produced optics of this focal ratio.

- No mention of a parabolised primary mirror (my rule of thumb is, if it's not mentioned then assume that it does not have it, when it comes to cheaper scopes)

- A low capacity equatorial mount with a large, heavy tube on it.

- Aluminium tripod which will make the undersized mount even more inadequate

- A rather puny finder scope for a scope of this aperture

- The general tone of the advertisment which is also incomplete in places

A few years ago a US amateur astronomer bought one of these (under different branding) and posted a review of it highlighting that it was practically unseable except at the lowest magnifications. I can't find that review just now but if I come across it, I'll post a link.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.