> Add on top of that the incredible computational imaging capabilities that have been developed over the past few years and the quality of images you can get fr

> Add on top of that the incredible computational imaging capabilities that have been developed over the past few years and the quality of images you can get from the size of optics and pixels that these devices have is amazing and more than good enough for 99% of people. These computational imaging capabilities are good enough for 99% of people because they're taking pictures on their phone and viewing them on their phone. They are NOT good enough for professional uses. https://spectre.cam/full-res/Full%20Size%20Comparison%20for%20Semantic%20Stuff.jpg https://spectre.cam/full-res/Full%20Size%20Comparison%20for%... <--- this is from an 11 pro, and was posted on a related article several days ago. The left side has had contrast tweaked to make it more obvious, but on both you can see that the iPhone 11's computational photography is doing very weird things to the picture that become pretty obvious when you start to look at them closely. You'd never notice on a phone, but on a monitor, or if this were to be printed for display, you notice that they look almost more like photorealistic paintings than they do actual photographs. This sort of thing would be completely unacceptable on a prosumer+ camera. There's some programs out there that can do similar things on your computer, like Luminar, that are significantly better at it - but are also using significantly more computing power to do it. Doing the same sort of processing in Luminar on a raw out of my a7r 3 takes 30-40 seconds to apply on an i7-7700k running at 5.2Ghz, and the results still sometimes come out looking similar to the iPhone shot. The tech isn't nearly there for this to be used on standalone cameras. Maybe in 5-10 years, but certainly not today.