If you're comparing a $200 compact to a $200 phone, then chances are high that the compact is still better, keeping in mind that you're paying $200 for only the

If you're comparing a $200 compact to a $200 phone, then chances are high that the compact is still better, keeping in mind that you're paying $200 for only the camera that you still have to take with you. If you're comparing a phone that has high-end specs in every way, plus a good camera, and costs $600, that camera should be better than most $200 compacts at this point. I think the game is over for compacts, even if all you can afford is a $200-$300 subsidized phone, and not a high-end one. My new Moto G 2014 takes quite good pictures with very little noise. Not only is the game over for compacts, but many people who perhaps before would've bought a sub-$1,000 DSLR to take vacation pictures, now don't feel the need to do tat anymore if they have a current-generation high-end phone that costs $600-$700, even if that $1,000 DSLR would be significantly better. The $600 phone cameras have become "good enough" for many people, except for those perhaps that have no trouble buying a $600 phone and a $1,000, or $2,000 or $3,000 DSLR to take with them in vacations. If I were the CEO of a camera company, I would've started focusing on the smartphone market 3+ years ago, from multiple angles: making my own "cameraphone" (such as Lumix CM1), selling "low-end" lenses for smartphones (that should still be significantly better than the ones others make for smartphones right now, that don't have experience in high-end cameras), and through other type of know-how/technology licensing that would help smartphone companies accelerate how good their phone cameras become - with my company cashing in on all of that. Out of Sony, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Samsung and so on, Sony is perhaps the best suited to do that. Not only are its smartphone sensors already highly popular, but it's also one of the top high-end camera makers. They also have their own smartphone company, so they have smartphone know-how, while others like Nikon or Panasonic don't. They could have so much synergy from that. Unfortunately, Sony's strategy in this is complete crap. The fact that their smartphone sensors are the most popular is probably mostly a coincidence, or inertia from bygone times, because none of the other strategies match it. Instead of making its own ultra-high-end cameraphone, Sony makes dumb camera accessories that nobody wants to use. Nokia received a lot of praise for its big bold 1020 camera, which had a halo effect on all of its other smartphones, too. Instead of trying to be recognized as having the best cameras, at least in the Android world, Sony rarely reaches top 3, because of bad software. And things are somewhat okay at the high-end, but all of their other phones have terrible cameras (both software and hardware). Sony is in a unique smartphone/camera intersection and they aren't anywhere near close to taking full advantage of it. Apple continuously beats them, even though Apple uses Sony's own sensors that are one or even two generations behind Sony's current smartphone sensors. To be honest, that's a complete disgrace. If I were Sony's CEO and I'd be in charge of such a disgrace for a few years already, I'd probably quit myself in shame - especially if I was Japanese (who, I think still care about honor and such things?) - and let someone better take charge.