Why do $5 throw-away cameras take better pictures than the expensive cameras that stalker-azzis use

You look in Enquirer,Star,or Globe. The picture is so fuzzy and out of focus, you can t tell if it's Cameron Diaz or Cameron Manhiem... Just have to take the paper's word for it ..

Don't blame the gear. The problem with paparazzi these days is that their $10.000 cameras make them lazy. They coast along aimlessly in Ford Pintos with no shocks or breaks, and when they see a celebrity they’ll point the camera in their general direction and click away at 8 FPS. Usually with half a sandwich stuck to the lens. Frankly, it’s a miracle that they don’t kill more pedestrians than they do – never mind getting the shot.

I wish they went old-school again. It takes a true professional to jump out of a bush with nothing but a Kodak Instamatic. Timing was everything. And it made for such interesting expressions, too! Those pictures were probably taken from half a mile away or even from a helicopter using a monstrously huge telephoto lens and we are seeing the central 4% of an image that has been cropped and enlarged to within an inch of its life. Sorry, but the 5$ trash is worth... 5$. The expensive cameras take pictures hundreds of feet away. Fuzziness is expected even with an expensive lens.

Also, don't forget that many of these picture are taken "on the fly" and you usually don't get a second chance to take a good picture.

I have 1000$ Olympus and I probably use 20% of its features. But picture quality is WAAAY better than my Canon 3 MP camera. Because they have a better lens than those stupid $5,000 cameras. Why do you think people buy a bunch of them and pass them out at weddings? The optics on a cardboard camera with a plastic lens will beat any of those $2,000 Image Stabilized, fast aperture lenses. It's a conspiracy to rob photographers of all their money and to cheat people going to have their portraits taken.