Thinking about large cameras

"Larger cameras produce better photos" - myth, generalisation, or true?

Manufacturers of large [digital] cameras would like us to believe that good photos need expensive gear -- and ever more pixels.

People who can't be bothered to figure out how their camera works would like to think that "a better camera" will magically solve this problem. Maybe it will - having invested the money, they might do the work to learn how to use some of the camera's many features.

Those who have inherited a basic camera from someone who got frustrated with its limitations, and are similarly frustrated or simply befuddled, might be justified in thinking a "larger" camera - or even something slightly newer - would be easier to use, freeing them up to take "better" photos. They're probably right!

People with large cameras sometimes buy them because they already know how to use a "small" camera to get a technically good shot - and they're aware of how the extra features will help them get a technically better shot.

Some people stick to small cameras because, literally, of the size - even cameras that fit into a pocket now have many advanced features.

Is there any hope for people with "small" - basic, or older - cameras?

Yes, if we know how to use them:

- If we realise that digital means you can take lots of pictures, and at leisure can delete all but the good ones. (Get a big memory card.)

- If we get acquainted with the camera's features - start with trying out the automatic programs on the same subject, to see how they change things, then decide which one you'll usually use. (For me, it's the one with the most automatic functions, including anti-shake. I want to be able to concentrate on composition; the rest can be changed during photo editing on the computer.)

- If we know how to turn off the flash, especially when shooting through glass or taking things at a distance. (Digital cameras work well in less light than film.)

As for ever-more pixels, this is a whole 'nother can of worms... Yes, a picture taken on a 5 megapixel camera will be better - sharper, clearer - than one taken on a 1 megapixel camera. But - you really only need 3 or 4 megapixels to make a good quality 6 x 4 inch or 7 x 5 inch print (300 dpi resolution) or a huge on-screen image (72 dpi resolution). If you crop your photos, or if you use lots of zoom, you'll need more megapixels, but basically I think we've been brainwashed into over-kill mode.

This camera from 1934 really did take better pictures - it held plates up to 50 inches square and was used to make nautical and airway charts.

And this camera, some 70 years later, was not only "wearable" (at the expense of optical zoom) but had an astonishingly large screen for the time. At 3.2 megapixels, it took pictures accepted for print publication. When I saw that its successor (almost as small, and with "proper" zoom) had anti-shake, an upgrade was imminent -