Yeah but they won't do that. Image from much cheaper smartphone would be comparable (at least enough to make you think twice about the price difference) and a s

Yeah but they won't do that. Image from much cheaper smartphone would be comparable (at least enough to make you think twice about the price difference) and a shot from a "real" DSLR or mirrorless camera would have so much better details and lightning in general that wouldn't even look at the iPhone shot even after gigantic amount of post-processing. The fact he use light painting as a theme is not random in my opinion, because it is one of the "subjects" in photography where it is easier to make up for a worse quality sensor. You just need a tripod and patience. Which is exactly what he did (he is a photographer he knows his stuff it seems...). If it were about instantaneous shots, the iphone wouldn't far as well and way worse if we were to compare with pro level camera. The difficulty for a sensor/optics combo is to capture as much details as possible as fast as possible (movings things will create all kinds of artifacts). Which is why a camera that is able to capture a fast moving car in lots of details is expensive. But Apple is trying to sell their stuff as if it could compete or even replace that kind of gear by using shots that were deliberately constrained to a much easier form of photography. This is disingenuous and pure marketing nonsense...