>>3540515Eh, phone cameras are still pretty crappy IMO. Really lousy on detail, dynamic range is piss poor, ISO performance is just terrible, at least compared to any modern camera with APS-C or larger sensor. For all the posturing about phone camera improvements, which only really happen in phones that are $800+, you could buy a D-SLR for $500-$800 that completely fucking destroys it in terms of technical image quality. I'm not kidding. These days for the amount you pay for an iPhone X or 11 you could get a D800 and 50mm 1.8 lens and the image quality would be so incredibly far above anything those phones could do, you might even hard to keep justifying it with "but I can upload to IG right away!" or "but it's so small and light!!"
I was actually looking at iPhone X images on my phone and thought they looked pretty good, until I saw the article on my PC and could immediately tell how inferior they were to even m4/3 cameras. They have gotten good at making phone images look good on phones, and sharing on apps made for phones, I'll give them that. But I'll be damned if I happen upon a great scene and have to capture it with my phone when my dedicated camera does it so much better. To each their own.
No, laymen don't care about image quality that much. If they did, they wouldn't be that happy with the images they got when viewed on anything other than a tiny phone screen. Hell, even if you zoom in to phone pictures with the phone itself you can see how muddied and grainy they are even in daytime shots.