>>3321888Yes, I know how it works. Obviously I was referring to the field of view. You'd end up with more detail using a 600mm, but it would still be shit with the subjects taking up a tiny percentage of the frame. Even after cropping it would still be shit. They still wouldn't be isolated from the background at that distance either, and it would still look like a mess.
>do what the actually gud wildlife togs do, which is studying their subjects, look for good spots, and lie in wait patientlyMy whole point. You can't just rely on focal length and/or cropping to solve all of your problems.
>>3321872 needs to be a lot closer to get a good shot with any lens. Even 800mm f/5.6 would just result in a mess.
I never advocated for bridge cameras or superzooms, just for getting closer.
