The error correction is funny. If you don't use it, your message takes up less space, and the QR is smaller. If you have a fixed space to fit it in (e.g. printing to a sticker), that means your pixels can be physically bigger. For reliable reading, I found that physically bigger pixels helped more than the error correction itself.
Depending on the length of your message, sometimes you can turn up the error correction level without impacting the final QR dimensions, and in those cases it's a win/win.
The 'proper' fix is to either engineer cameras that can focus closer, or to engineer barcode scanning apps to be able to see a code which is small somewhere in the frame.
It doesn't matter how objectively good your camera/decoder is, in absolute terms. There will always be some minimum size or maximum distance, where the detail can no longer be resolved (or errors no longer corrected)
If we're talking theory, the pixel size doesn't matter - it's the amount of information encoded in the QR code that matters (ie. excluding ECC bits!). In turn, that means it is theoretically possible to decode a QR code where each 'pixel' of the code is smaller than the pixel of the camera sensor observing the code.
While it is theoretically possible, nobody has yet done so...
Physically bigger pixels help a lot indeed. The encoding mode also helps make pixels bigger.
This is very convenient when you control the QR reader and need to represent long numeric identifiers like UUIDs.
For example:
9728983f-7d7d-4189-b624-f92781e36650 (lowercase UUID):
=> length=36, 15 pixels between markers
JWM9GFVXFN0RKDH4Z4KR3RV6A0 (base32 UUID):
=> length=26, 11 pixels between markers
9728983F-7D7D-4189-B624-F92781E36650 (uppercase UUID):
=> length=36, 11 pixels between markers
200924207194334734815443970355691218512 (decimal UUID):
=> length=39, 7 pixels between markers
The uppercase UUID has bigger pixels because it used a different encoding, and gets the same results as the shorter base32 uuid.
The decimal UUID is a longer string, but results in much bigger pixels because it can use numeric encoding.
I have a QR code base attendance tracker [1], where attendees show the code [2] on their phones (glares, etc.), in bad lighting conditions, etc. Bigger pixels means scanning stays quick. Same with parcel tracking [3] where field agents might need to scan QR codes in barely-lit hallways, etc.
-4J5BJ+%F$C881NIMV-IG2.C (base45, 132 bits in QR)
JWM9GFVXFN0RKDH4Z4KR3RV6A0 (base32, 143 bits in QR)
200924207194334734815443970355691218512 (decimal, 130 bits in QR)
It will make use of all allowed characters in the alphanumeric mode, while being significantly shorter than base32 and as dense as decimal. And decimal encoding in general needs bignum, because there is no suitable 10^k which is only slightly larger than powers of two so no convenient binary-to-decimal encoding exists (conversely, QR code itself does make use of the fact 2^10 is only slightly larger than 10^3 for this mode). Base45 always works on three-byte groups and maintains the similar efficiency in comparison.
Depending on the length of your message, sometimes you can turn up the error correction level without impacting the final QR dimensions, and in those cases it's a win/win.