I agree. 90% of DSLR shots don’t need to push the limits of physics. 100 vs 1600 ISO doesn’t matter if you have indistinguishable noise reduction. F/1.8 gives a nice bokeh, but if you only have two depth planes (a foreground subject and a distant background), no one will notice if you fake the blur.
That said, I still have to carry my mirrorless into the backcountry because tiny sensors can physically only let in so much light, which makes them unsuitable for astrophotography. I’ve seen the “Astro-modes” on new flagship phones and the result is always “wow, this is good...for a phone”, but nowhere close to what I can get unedited from my camera.
And the worst thing is that it’s unlikely to change. Companies that have the ability to make really good phone cameras have no interest in ILCs, and the ones who make really good ILCs don’t care about software.
And good luck trying to compete in the middle without the hundreds of millions that Apple/Google put into ML research and the decades of research that Canon has done on colour science.
That said, I still have to carry my mirrorless into the backcountry because tiny sensors can physically only let in so much light, which makes them unsuitable for astrophotography. I’ve seen the “Astro-modes” on new flagship phones and the result is always “wow, this is good...for a phone”, but nowhere close to what I can get unedited from my camera.
And the worst thing is that it’s unlikely to change. Companies that have the ability to make really good phone cameras have no interest in ILCs, and the ones who make really good ILCs don’t care about software.
And good luck trying to compete in the middle without the hundreds of millions that Apple/Google put into ML research and the decades of research that Canon has done on colour science.