What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
New review items
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Opus
Birds & Bird Song
Locations
Resources
Contribute
Recent changes
Blogs
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
ZEISS
ZEISS Nature Observation
The Most Important Optical Parameters
Innovative Technologies
Conservation Projects
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is
absolutely FREE
!
Register for an account
to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Porro or Roof?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="WJC" data-source="post: 3143839" data-attributes="member: 25191"><p>When a certain big name telescope (largely importing) company launched their 3.5-inch, mostly plastic, Maksutov telescope, many folks said it was just as good as a Questar (They should stop drinking the cheap stuff). Aside from the fact that some of those claimants had NEVER LOOKED THROUGH a Questar, I knew intuitively that something was wrong with that picture.</p><p></p><p>In my research, I came across one who said that the first 100 optics set came from Cumberland Optics, oddly enough that's the company that produced the optics for the . . . QUESTAR! True or not, the word was being scatter from cost to coast and those who believed everything they saw and heard--and lacked critical thinking--bought into it. They could have a Questar at 1/6th the price. Whoopee!</p><p></p><p>And, a legend was born. Deserved? Well . . . . I just wonder who made the thousands of other sets.</p><p></p><p>Bill</p><p></p><p>PS Arthur: that wasn't an ellipsis; it was an ellipsis followed by a period. |<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" />|</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WJC, post: 3143839, member: 25191"] When a certain big name telescope (largely importing) company launched their 3.5-inch, mostly plastic, Maksutov telescope, many folks said it was just as good as a Questar (They should stop drinking the cheap stuff). Aside from the fact that some of those claimants had NEVER LOOKED THROUGH a Questar, I knew intuitively that something was wrong with that picture. In my research, I came across one who said that the first 100 optics set came from Cumberland Optics, oddly enough that's the company that produced the optics for the . . . QUESTAR! True or not, the word was being scatter from cost to coast and those who believed everything they saw and heard--and lacked critical thinking--bought into it. They could have a Questar at 1/6th the price. Whoopee! And, a legend was born. Deserved? Well . . . . I just wonder who made the thousands of other sets. Bill PS Arthur: that wasn't an ellipsis; it was an ellipsis followed by a period. |:D| [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Binoculars & Spotting Scopes
Binoculars
Porro or Roof?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more...
Top