That's not really correct. Most large telescopes have a small FoV for starters (couple of arcminutes at best). Bigger telescopes gather more light and can thus

That's not really correct. Most large telescopes have a small FoV for starters (couple of arcminutes at best). Bigger telescopes gather more light and can thus see fainter objects. The biggest limit to angular resolution (beyond some rather small diameter optic) is atmospheric seeing. This prohibits you from resolving anything smaller than 0.5-2 arcseconds (depending on the site conditions) regardless of the optic used. But there are to compensate for atmospheric seeing: Adaptive optics (AO) and Lucky Imaging (you don't integrate for a long time, but only take very short exposures and once in a while you get lucky and the atmosphere doesn't distort the image much and you get a very high resolution image). AO is what's usually available at very large telescopes, while Lucky Imaging is usually done on medium to small telescopes. And for LI gathering more light (and therefore a bigger optic) does help. So yes.. with a bigger telescope and a fast(er) camera you would probably be able to take a better picture (and moving to a place with good seeing would certainly help as well).