Does size matter?
Serious photographers seem to do their work with hefty, impressive-looking cameras and a whole host of lenses, filters and other equipment. My confession is that I take all my shots on a compact which fits snugly into my coat pocket. For night shots I use a collapsible tripod which slides into a regular rucksack.
My relatively small Lumix TZ20 does everything I want it to, with a very decent zoom and full manual capability and a myriad of settings for plenty of flexibility. I’m comfortable with it and am pleased with a lot of the results.
A photographer friend recently said to me “it’s not how big it is, it’s what you do with it”. But would my trusty compact seem inferior lined up against a bunch of bulkier models?
Does size honestly matter? Is the eye of a photographer more important than the hardware that does the work? What do you think?…
mikeosbornphoto 
The better the eye of the photographer, the more he gets out his equipment. One should never upgrade before he hits the limits of what he has.
LikeLike
I agree, Steven. The more familiar you are with your equipment, the better it will work for you. You can have the best camera money can buy and it won’t produce the results.
LikeLike
Good point. Some of the pictures on my phone are better than the ones on the big bulky Lumix we bought for several hundred pounds.
I guess the size of the lens makes a difference – but only if you’re planning to blow photos up to the size of a billboard (which you could definitely do, by the way).
LikeLike
Yes, phone cameras aren’t to be sniffed at either these days. I think it all comes down to whether the kit can live up to your creativity.
LikeLike