> Same with nature This was exactly the thought, and example, I had reading the article. The last "oh wow" level photo I took was of a dragonfly perched on a

> Same with nature This was exactly the thought, and example, I had reading the article. The last "oh wow" level photo I took was of a dragonfly perched on a flower on the shore of a lake. My phone would never have taken the photo; it lacks the hardware necessary to capture that photo. It's not a lion, but you can't walk up to a dragonfly: it would have flown away. Not only the zoom problem, but for that particular photo I took a series of photos at just ever so slightly different focuses. Autofocus is only so good … and sometimes just completely misses the mark; I have fought my phone on this so many times, with it just picking the wrong spot continuously. Much easier to aim a camera's autofocus, and if that fails I can manual. But even then, sometimes the autofocus is "right" (in that it hits the right target), but I find it's still only so good. And a dragonfly is not a large target; if it's off even a bit, blur. Sometimes it's such that I can look at the preview/view finder, and it looks in focus, but once the photo is taken, it's close … but not perfect, and it ruins the wow. Hence, manual focus and just spreading a bunch of shots across the nearby range — one is bound to be close. I've also shot dance competitions, and they're dimly lit. Looks nice, but you need a real lens to get sufficient photons. Absolutely composition matters … but if you're just consistently missing due to the hardware, then even if you get it right, the photo is still lacking.