Sample gallery: Apple's iPhone 5s

My co-worker showed me a photo of his brother he took with an iPhone 5. He was gloating at how good the photo is and how he doesn't get why people buy expensive cameras. In the photo, his brother was holding a bat and standing next to the batting cage during the evening light. I asked him why he had no photos of his brother hitting an actual baseball to which he responded that he couldn't get the shot. That pretty much answers the biggest question of all; will smartphone camers ever replace DSLRs? Uh, no, don't hold your breath. It's already established that they can eliminate the requirement for a point and shoot(thought not a very good one) but it will be years, if ever, before professionals start carrying smartphones to their studios or sporting events.

After looking at iP5s pics., I came to an inescapable conclusion, at least in my mind: It is no match for the creativity you can do with your trusty DSLRs. It will do for quick, down and dirty pics in a pinch if your DSLR is not available right away. For serious photographers, sorry guys and gals - smart phones don't cut it.

Pssttt... will it make phone calls? That's the purpose of these phones isn't it? All other functions are the sizzles on the steak. I have a Samsung Galaxy S and I am not about to part with it. It is old yes, but makes calls. I do not remember when I used it last to take any pics.

Why are so many here offended by the idea of having a great camera attached to a device you tend to have with you as you go through the day? Note this is a rhetorical statement --not a question.

I'd like to share a panoramic composition made ​​with iPhone 5

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kotecinho/9075790199/

Not even Close to Nokia 1020. Low light sucks and the pics are only useful on the web. Sorry but Iphone is not a good cameraphone.

The dynamic range is stunning. I'd like to know the electron well capacity. It's probably better than the early dSLRs like the NIkon D70.

The next step for Apple would be to implement Raw file formats for even better post-processing.

Skies are blue while the shadows are not totally black. Pretty good DR for such a small sensor and good metering and curve.

So where are the articles on what the Surface Pro 2 means to photographers?

Those window frames are horrible and might cut your fingers and glasses will fall anytime of the day.

mew..average cell phone garbage. What a wast of time.

I don't think these a special at all I am afraid and cannot believe how people on DPreview commenting think otherwise. My Samsung Galaxy Note (original one) took way better pictures. More punchy, clean etc. The noise in these is terrible and that's even allowing for it being a phone camera. (I have no bias towards any manufacturer.) Sorry to be a bubble burster!

These panos look freaking great for having been made on a camera phone. Really nice stitching on the image borders. I'm shocked.

Well, I am impressed. Stitching seems pretty well done.

When I got my first P&S camera, I couldnt even imagine I will be able to take far better photos with my evolutionized iphone, only few years later.

Did you guys just discover what the panorama function is? or what?

lol horrible photos. Thx S4 , Lg G2 and ... Nokia Lumia 1020. No way !

Love the duck.

Not just the iPhone, but many of the later generation smartphones are perfectly acceptable replacements for "point and click" compacts and for gimmick shots like panorama (linear in the case of iPhone, or spherical in the case of Android). That camera market segment is rapidly disappearing as a result, with phones used to capture moments when one doesn't have a quality camera along. The only thing that caught my eye with these particular pictures was the apparently high-quality in-camera panorama stitching. Good to see phone manufacturers competing on this basis- it brings nothing but goodness for us consumers.

Well, it's official: thousands of dollars worth of camera equipment are now completely obsolete. For the longest time I wanted really great photo quality, a system with enough performance to allow me a large range of shooting options, a great selection of lenses and accessories, and my output to be good enough that a large print would look good even from fairly close up. I was behind the times. "Good enough" is the flavor of the day, and I assume that means "good enough to share on Facebook or Twitter or Instagram" but maybe it also means good enough to print and frame. Trick is I'll have to keep people five feet away from even an 8X10 so they won't see all the noise and complete lack of detail in shots taken in anything but intense sunlight. I don't need to zoom or make larger prints with crisp details that I can display in my home. Everything should be shot for the web and only to document what I am doing at any given moment. 8MP pictures of my meals, here I come! Ooo, selfies!

Good enough for 99% of the human race. Considering the quality of imagery available now from smartphones, it will be interesting to see what camera manufacturers do. A prediction: fast lenses and big sensors. Back to the past.

Actually, looks good enough to me.