Size does matter in (digital) photography. More than you think.
In this story I’d like to share some reflections about this specific aspect of my journey into digital photography, hoping these considerations inspire you and ultimately improve your experience. I underline “digital” because my experience with film cameras is not relevant in this context and some of the arguments exposed hereby would not apply.
Let’s crack on!
· Sensor. The size of the sensor is the most obvious starting point of this story, as most of the people would understand its importance and agree with it. The bigger the sensor, the more data is captured in your picture, the better it is. Simple, right? Well … not so fast. There are many implications, mainly around price, as bigger sensors would be available on more expensive (and recent) cameras, but let’s move on, I’ll come back to this topic. For the time being let’s just remind ourselves that digital cameras can be categorised based on sensor size, as
o Full-Frame -> defined as “35mm equivalent sensor”. Nikon uses the FX notation for their cameras with this sensor; Canon uses EF.
o Crop Sensor -> APS-C sized sensor (smaller than Full-Frame). Nikon uses the DX notation for their cameras with this sensor; Canon uses EF-S
· Pictures size. I give for granted that you’d shoot with the greatest resolution that your digital camera supports. That said, most digital cameras (and smartphones) will allow you to shoot in jpeg or RAW format, sometimes in both at the same time. I am a big fan of RAW format, as bigger amount of data allows better fine-tuning of the picture, but this choice has its downsides:
o RAW format is not always recognised by social media, multimedia management software or other applications, like the ones that creates photo albums with your own pictures
o RAW files size is much bigger than same picture in jpeg format. This has implications in terms of storage/backup (you need more capacity) and in terms of memory cards (you need bigger ones or more of them)
o If you shoot RAW you are not likely to share them as they are … you can anticipate you will review each shot and “improve it” before you save it in Jpeg format … this can be awfully time consuming (and requires dedicated software tools).
o To scroll through your archive of Raw files is certainly way slower than to navigate through pictures in JPEG format. This may seem trivial, but — trust me on this one — it can be so frustrating to wait 1 or 2 seconds to load a single picture on screen …
· Body. Let’s face it … holding a beefy camera is satisfying … bigger camera body, bigger screen, better grip, more slots for cards, battery with greater capacity, larger buttons, in some cases even double buttons to shoot with the camera in portrait and landscape mode. All good, right? Well … not necessarily. There is an obvious downside to bigger size … that is bigger weight, which may prevent you to take your camera with you as often as you could. In a recent travel I had to leave my camera at home as already hitting the limit of allowed cabin luggage on the plane. In my previous story I wrote that “the best camera is the one with have with you” … bigger size may result in less chances you have your big camera with you. For those of you considering to buy a new camera body, you may want to consider mirrorless cameras, that could get you (possibly) a bigger sensor and (certainly) less weight if compared to a traditional reflex digital camera. In any case, the body of the camera is just one part of your equipment … let’s keep this in mind as we jump to the next topic.
· Gear. This may not be applicable for every scenario, but if you own a camera that mounts interchangeable lenses, chances are you may want to equip yourself with more of them, to achieve the best result in each of your shooting scenarios (sport, architecture, portraits, landscape, … you name it). In this sense, the bigger gear you have, the better. Sounds reasonable, right? Yes, but … you know what I am about to say … there are some downsides you may want to consider:
o Several dedicated lenses or a single lens? This is a huge topic, worth a story on its own, so I will try to keep it short and simple, with a practical example.
For argument sake, would you rather purchase
§ a 10–24 mm lens for architecture
§ a 24–70 mm lens for landscape and portraits
§ a 70–200 mm lens for sport
§ a 200–500 mm for birdwatching
… or would you settle for a single 18–400 mm lens?
Assuming for a moment that budget is not a factor, your decision will depend on your own priorities in terms of image quality, flexibility, usability and portability of your gear. Bigger gear (more lenses) may not be obviously better. If you see yourself travelling with more lens and switching them as you see fit while you are sightseeing an archaeological site … think again … I’ve been there, it’s no fun, I was ready to pay a fortune for a sherpa to help me out. Not to mention the risk of dirt entering the camera. Would it have been better to choose one lens and — once on location — regret that you did not take THAT other one? I’ve been there as well … there is no straight answer 😊
o Bigger body and bigger lens would require a bigger tripod, should you need it. Bigger in this case goes very much hand in hand with more heavy and more expensive. If you need your camera and zoom to be super still for your 20–30 seconds shot, you need a sturdy tripod that does not vibrate when the shutter moves (less so if you have a mirrorless camera, but still).
o Bigger camera and bigger gear translate into … bigger and heavier luggage (camera bag or backpack or trolley) to carry your gear with you. Not to mention all the accessories that you would need or find useful: lens cleaning kit, cables, chargers, batteries, memory cards, tablets and other useful gadgets. If you are travelling by car, this may not be an issue, but if you are flying somewhere on a budget … this may lead to re-thinking your equipment for that journey.
· Screen. From the moment you are taking picture till the moment you save them in your backup solution you are likely to use several different screens, depending on your “process”:
o It is quite normal that — while you take pictures — you check if your shots are any good using the screen at the back of your camera. In case you are shooting with your smartphone, your phone screen will be the one. To a certain extent, it is fair to assume that bigger is better, although on one hand screens on the back of the cameras are hardly good enough to decide if to keep a shot or not, but on the other hand it is unpractical to take pictures with a tablet. I once tried to load the pics on a tablet to see if I was making things right, but … no need to say, this is extra weight you need to carry with you and it is a lengthy process
o Once pictures are taken, you will need one or more screens to “consume” your shots, because you are likely to
§ process them via dedicated SW or apps (PC screen). My experience is that when it comes to processing the pictures a big screen (from 27” up) with big resolution (from 4K up) does make a huge difference, as you are more likely to visualise the picture in its entirety, spotting nuances and details that a small screen would make difficult and unpractical to recognise. If you assume that bigger screen and bigger resolution imply greater footprint on your desk and cost more … you are correct.
§ share them with family and friends (Tablet, PC screen, TV). The only advice here is that — should you have old pictures or pictures in low resolution — a big screen may not help you to enjoy them, as the upscaling of the image would affect the final result on screen
§ possibly share them on Social media (where they will be seen most likely via smartphone). Here your “ecosystem” plays quite an important part: posting on Instagram a picture shot with your smartphone is a breeze, while if your source is a RAW file that sits in your Full-Frame camera, that’s a totally different process … which begs the question: is it even worth to go through all this fuss, if your picture will be seen on such a small screen? If your pictures are meant for social media, bigger flagship camera, with super lens and all the bells and whistles may not be the way to go, unless you are an influencer or a professional photographer and making a living out of it.
· In conclusion, bigger may not necessarily be better, depending on the multitude of factors and personal preferences that I tried to expose briefly in this story. The only piece of advice I can share is that you may consider to start small and then build your gear as your experience grows and shapes your taste and preferences. Please note that by small I do not mean “the cheapest you can find”. Establish a budget you are comfortable with, then seek the advice of friends that are savvy with the matter. As you identify a product you may want to read reviews by specialised websites or YouTube channels, so to add more information to drive your purchasing decision. Mirrorless will save you from weight, interchangeable lens will give you options.
Should you need a sounding board, do not hesitate to reach out in the comments … I may not have the answer, but I would never suggest you to do something I would not do myself.
