>>4434197You are a poor retard.
>>4434213They don't, until they do.
The single most important thing for normies is whether an image looks good. Most of this is subject, but if the subject/light is good they can then appreciate quality or be disappointed.
Most image quality comes from the lens, next the image processing, then the sensor quality.
Smartphones fail at the lens but so did old point and shoots, they don't fail bad enough to complain about unless it's for portraits or important shit. Snapshots, they're fine. Biggest issue with this is people DON'T CLEAN THEIR LENSES but clean phone lenses are good enough for most things, including landscapes.
Smartphones majorly fail at the image processing. This is what defines "the look" of the image beyond the subject/lighting and is where things go horribly wrong. You can get around this by using 3rd party apps and shooting RAW but most don't bother, and wind up with the "Samsmug" or "Applel" or "HuaWHY" look on their images and then blame it on the lens, and think a new one will do better, and it doesn't, it's just more of the same with different post-process/ai shit and they become repeat customers never understanding why their images look so fake.
Smartphone sensors are actually good enough for a lot of things but for single-shot (no bracketing or multi-sampling possible to increase IQ+DR) capture they are a bit too noisy, and this results in copium attempts at de-noising, and this just circles back into shit image processing with fake looking NR artifacts. In a well lit scene within the DR of the sensor (not extreme contrast) and for a subject that doesn't require cropping/digital zooming, they're fine.
Problem is people want to crop/zoom, not shoot RAW, and shoot under shit lighting, never use a tripod, never clean their lens, and shoot without blocking sources of glare, so it all adds up to BAD. Mostly user error, but a good chunk is the device.
Used $100 DSLRs do better in the hands of retards.
