The comparison would've smashed the iPhone harder, if they'd used a good longer lens. My last student/amateur photojournalism kit was 2 APS-C bodies with a 70-

The comparison would've smashed the iPhone harder, if they'd used a good longer lens. My last student/amateur photojournalism kit was 2 APS-C bodies with a 70-200/4L and an old (but unusually sharp copy) 17-35/2.8L, plus a 50/1.4 or 28/1.8 in the bag. And very useful gadgets, like lens hoods, polarizers, and the occasional powerful strobe. I used the 70-200/4L for the majority of shots, and it was glorious. Also, muscle memory on the controls of a pro/prosumer body and lens is real. With a little practice, a lot of the mechanics of framing the shot, focal length, and selecting the autofocus point are automatic and happen in an instant. When a smartphone could do that at all, it would do it poorly, and you'll lose the moment. Lately, I've made an exercise of using only smartphone cameras -- iPhone and Pixel -- and it usually ends up as uninspiring snapshots, and now I can't be bothered to try. Then it got worse. A few days ago, I was testing the optically longer camera of a new smartphone, on a car license plate. The phone appeared to be doing bad processing of the sensor, such that what in reality were gentle curves of front of the parked (and cooled-down) car, came out looking like fairly clear shots of something snake-like wiggly. I didn't knowingly have any "AI enhancement" feature enabled -- it just decided to go with lies, rather than deliver a much more useful if blurrier image.