Bigger is better?

What is better?

Bigger is better. More expensive is better. Faster is better. These are ideas in our head that we rarely question. A medium format camera must be better than a DSLR right? A large DSLR must be better than a small mirrorless camera right? A full frame must be better than an APS-C sized sensor right? But how exactly is better defined? Sharper enlargements ? Faster auto focus? More accurate autofocus? More frames per second? Sharper enlargements people associate with megapixels, so a 24mp camera is better than an 18mp camera. Faster and more accurate AF is associate with cross type sensors and the number of sensors.

Bigger is better case study 1

Define for yourself what better means. In 2014 I bought a 5Diii and after shooting with it for a few months I realized that the 6D was all I needed. Technically one could argue that a 5Diii is better than a 6D, but I didn’t need fancy AF settings for my landscape shooting. In fact, it was a little bit intimidating and totally not required for the type of photography that I do. I blew up the picture below shot on my 6D to 24×36. Wow, super sharp. I don’t need any more resolution than a 20mp 6D for a 24×36 enlargement. I don’t enlarge bigger than that so no need to buy a camera with more resolution.

Bigger is better case study 2

In the 90’s I bought a Pentax 645AF since the negative was so much bigger than 35mm I figured I’d get better results. I didn’t. I didn’t really like shooting it either, but still bought into the bigger is better idea. I sold it and bought a Contax 645AF thinking it was the camera. Wow, what a camera, all $8k worth including lenses and accessories! Again, I didn’t get better results though the camera was much bigger and more expensive. What’s the problem? Bigger may be better in the studio, but I shoot outdoors, when I’m biking, hiking, traveling. Bigger just meant heavier, bulkier, more inconvenient, slower to shoot, resulting in substandard results. Bigger means you need a bigger tripod and head which by itself is a pain to carry around. Bigger is not always better. For outdoor photography, goes as small and light as possible for best results.

More expensive is better right? A $3500 Canon 5Div  is much better than a $1300 6D right? Depends. blah blah

Faster is better right? If shooting BIF is your thing, then getting the shot may mean a super fast FPS rating.

A better camera will help you get the shot you want. If 12×18 is the size you enlarge to most often, a 20mp FF or 24 APS-c camera is fine. If you shoot sports or birds in flight and other fast moving wildlife, then a Nikon D500 or Canon 7Dii or 80D with long telephotos is probably your best bet.

Like buying an expensive gas guzzling large SUV and only driving it solo on city streets, never using the 4WD or the 7 seat capacity, a high end DSLR can suffer the same fate. Ten FPS, 36mp or more, a million AF points…

Conclusion for the case studies:

In 2014 I hiked up to the top of Multnomah Falls in Oregon with a 5Diii and 24-105 and a large tripod. I picked it up for $2800, a steal at the time they were $3499. Totally not worth the weight. The top of the falls was not interesting at all. Looking back, I wish I would have had an M3 back then. So, lighter and smaller is better for me at this stage of my photography.