>>4222657>>4222664>MUH CANON BADProbably jealous he can't afford Canon.
>muh irrelevant comparison of lenses!!!That's nice, but the topic is how pixel density affects reach, all other factors being equal. Picrel: which cameras do you think could handle greater cropping for more reach?
>muh abberrations!Didn't stop cANON from resolving more detail on Saturn. Why deny what is before your eyes? What purpose does it serve? Do you really want to win an online debate so bad you will ignore the evidence and make a fool of yourself?
>muh obsession with a poster!!!Meds and therapy could help with that, but you have to ask for help.