>>4242564>Look, I'm not going to let you run me around in circles so will just quote you. You said:>>For people and wildlife you are not at atmospheric distortion distances. Not even closeI guess I have to explain this to you like you're a 5yo child. There are distances+magnifications at which atmospheric disturbance is a regular problem. You expect it. If you don't see it you are having an especially good day with unusually still air.
Then there are distances where it's not normally a problem. If you see it, it's abnormal suggesting relatively extreme conditions and temperature differentials between you and the target.
800mm on people/animals is not that far. You do not normally encounter atmospheric disturbance at those distances outdoors. You would never expect to see it indoors.
>Now you're saying it can happen but is not a regular ocurrence which is exactly what I told you.No, you are acting like it's a regular occurrence when it is a rare occurrence at those distances. This is all in the context of
>>4242455 (you?) claiming it's a "big issue". It is not a big issue.
>>Again I ask if you have ever photographed anything at 800mm equivalent? You never answered that question>I have this:>https://telescopescanada.ca/products/c11-sct-ota-cgeYou do understand that 2,800mm != 800mm, right?
>Also, fuck my "acting" and quote me. Anon (you?) says atmospheric disturbance is a "big issue" at 800mm
>>4242455I reply that it is not normally an issue at those distances
>>4242528You jump in with BUT IT CAN HAPPEN!!!
>>4242539Again I point out that it is not normal
>>4242541Again you reply BUT IT HAPPENS EASILY
>>4242548>You are being very emotional and irrational. Says the guy who is being autistic and arguing to argue.
>You shouldn't speak in absolutesI didn't. Do I have to explain it to you again, this time with crayons?
