> The rear-facing cameras (which you use for taking pictures) are within spitting distance of perfect, barring any revolutions in camera physics. The front-facing cameras are inferior but they get the job done and are very respectable.
I disagree. The pics looks good on a phone, but when you compare a large print vs a full frame camera, the difference is obvious.
Also, if you try to photograph the milky way with your iPhone, it's limitations are obvious (even on a phone screen).
As far as I can tell, you aren’t disagreeing with what I was saying.
I’m talking about “perfect” relative to what is physically possible within a mobile phone form factor, under the assumption that we are using traditional camera technology—using a lens to project a two-dimensional image onto a sensor, which records the image. From quantum physics we know the resolution is limited by diffraction through the aperture, so barring radical new materials, this won’t change much. Also from quantum mechanics we know that the noise floor will never drop below the shot noise of the actual photons hitting the sensor.
If you want a better camera, it’s easy to just get a bigger one. However, camera technology has plateaued, and we no longer see radical improvements in image quality just by upgrading our cameras to newer models. (We still see incremental improvements, like the appearance of mirrorless cameras, but there’s only so many incremental improvements you can make before you run out of physics, and need to change your assumptions.)
I disagree. The pics looks good on a phone, but when you compare a large print vs a full frame camera, the difference is obvious.
Also, if you try to photograph the milky way with your iPhone, it's limitations are obvious (even on a phone screen).