The limits of "computational photography"
The smartphone cameras have improved a lot in the recent years, but they cannot compete or match a full frame sensor provided the limitations. The size of the sensor and the optics play a major role in the final image quality and one can only do so much with the computational photography or whatever method.<p>Especially the iPhone photography and videography is always overrated by the fanbois and some of the &quot;professionals&quot;. While it might look good on &quot;some&quot; pictures with the heavy post processing, it just doesn&#x27;t have any details. It might just appeal fine for a 100% view of the picture as is and even the slightest post processing or editing done on the output pictures ruins them a lot.<p>One has to depend upon what the developer of the application or the manufacturer thinks is the right picture (and who the hell are they to decide what my photo should look like?) and most of the time they are terribly wrong.<p>Apple is just overrated and for that matter, even some of the Android&#x27;s as well.<p>Raw pics from a full frame sensors hold the fort and will continue to hold for a longtime to come unless the phones match DSLR in terms of sensor size and optics size. Until then &quot;computational photography&quot; will make the pictures look terrible and dictate how it has to look like.<p>I see a lot of comments where folks talk about RAW. But seriously, how does it matter for any normal user who tends to click a pic using the phone instead of a DSLR? If one is photographer, it makes sense, else it is additional workflow to get it in RAW and do the post processing on a computer... I&#x27;m just saying...<p>Thoughts welcome...