If you don't look at 100% view on a 100dpi monitor (a very unrealistic way to view images), these are remarkable. You could print many of these at 12x16", hang them next to DSLR images, and nobody would know.

meh.

These images are fine everyday snaps. They don't look much different than if you shot the same scenes with a DSLR. Now if you were to shoot images with outstanding light (which makes a photograph and not the the equipment) in RAW and expertly edited in post they would be great. What I'm saying is I have seen and in my own experience made 16x20' s of images from an iPhone that when framed and viewed hanging on a wall are just fine. Of course you wouldn't be using an iPhone to shoot sports the same as you wouldn't use a 4x5 view camera.

You need to use common sense and for those that poo poo iPhones for photos don't bother because in your mind that's fine. My mind is made up and if I'm out and I only have my iPhone I'm confident I'll at least come back with a memory worth framing. And if I don't it's my fault not the camera.

WOW stunning!
While LG and Samsung producing oil painting like photos...

EDIT sorry my mistake! I looked first at the RAW conversion.
The JPEGS are oil paintings as well.

These look great! Obviously not quite up to the quality of the latest camera technology, but certainly good enough to have those who fear smartphone cameras scrambling for their loupes.

For most people, these are perfectly acceptable and the technology is also progressing rapidly.

These images are so much better than the (even slightly) older photos in most people's archives and albums. And those were taken with "real" cameras. Remember when we used to rave about how great the photos from those old cameras were? OK, you don't have to admit it ;-)

the faster the dslr is eliminated the better!

The portrait mode functionality not only selectively blurs the background,

but also appears to blur facial features, except for the mouth and the eyes.

This does not play well with facial hair detail.

These comments make me smile, these images are more than good enough for 99% of the worlds population and good enough to prevent most people from buying a dedicated camera, are they as good as a "proper" camera with a bigger sensor ?....well no, but most people (and I mean the vast majority of the worlds population) couldn't care less and will be happy with this level of image quality

will you include it in the camera comparison tool? I hope so.

The fake bokeh is disturbingly foul and ugly

What I don't understand: why do cellphones stick to 4:3 so often, instead of 3:2?

Small 1/3 sensor...nothing spectacular.

For the whiners, view these pics on a + sized iPhone. They look great. That's how phone pics are viewed and shared: on phones. Big 100 ppi computer screen 100% views dinosaurs

Hard to justify a dedicated camera to a casual photographer when phones start cranking out images like these. An APSC camera can still do way better, despite what Ken Rockwell says, but Apple and others are continuing to close the gap.

After owning and using Chinese knock offs I was with my sister in law and she had the new i-Phone X, I played with it for a while.
Honestly my thoughts were it was extremely overpriced compared to my Xiaomi, and way to heavy.
The whole time I was asking her questions about it and she knew nothing other than it was a i-Phone? She was parading it around like it was the greatest thing in the world.
I was thinking the whole time what a over priced POS..

nice IQ but no better than other flagships, and still behind the Pixel 2, S8 etc brigade, Apple's photos are just too over-processed (look at the nose,left eye area of the child asleep in the car, use the loupe facility, looks so unnatural). Wish Apple would go back to their natural looking photos of years gone by... the tiny sensor (1.12 micrometers and second sensor pixels of 1.0 micrometers) is quite a bit smaller than the Pixel 2 and S8, which doesn't help. So yes not bad IQ but not great!

It'll be an old phone that'll be too expensive to fix, but easy to break, in less than a year.

Another camera which is far more capable than the majority of its users. I say that comfortably after looking through the images posted in forums on this website.

Looking at the gallery there is a surpising dearth of photos shot inside with indoor lighting. The bar shots and most of the other indoor shots have a hefty dose of natural lighting from large windows (I'm guessing just from the angle of the light).

The only good example of an indoor available light photo is the last photos by rishi of a woman at a restaurant or bar. The picture is at 800 ISO (resulting in a water paiting effect if zoomed in that pixel peepers will moan about but still looks ok at full screen) and at an amazing 1/4 seconds shutter speed. Try that shutter speed home with kids or pets running and see what kind of photos you get.

Too bad the X comes in a non repairable glass body, because it's got a great camera.

I'm still very impressed with what smart phones are putting out these days, from Apple, Samsung, and Google. But I agree that there can be tremendous pixelation in photos taken in bad light when the auto ISO goes up when printed and viewed at poster size. One option for static shots is to use an app like Camera+ that lets you do a super low ISO and a super long shutter speed.

But...there's an even better option. When I see a must-have static photo opp and only have my phone with me, I find that both Cortex Cam and Hydra app's stacking abilities (about 30 and 48 shots respectively) really create quality that still surprises me every time I use either. Cortex Cam has more options (de-ghosting; choice of cameras on the Plus models, etc.), but I find Hydra to be even cleaner and crisper. So we do have some nearer-to-SLR options when we're really in a pinch.

Not impressed.

The photos look great! It's becoming clear with the latest generation of mobile phones that when pros take photos with them, they tend to come out better than any photos of mine, independent of what lens/camera combination I use.

When one actually takes the trouble to download one or two of the RAW images (instead of flip through the gallery) and look at them/play around with them, I'd be amazed if people were not really impressed with the quality that is achievable. The waterfall image as a RAW file is really impressive as is the boats in the harbour image.

Unless I was trying to be a real jerk and use this for smartphone or Apple bashing (both a big favourite around here) I would have to admit that this is at least as good as some compact cameras - and way better in some cases - with lots of detail in the files, and capable of some really excellent results that are usable way beyond a mere Facebook posting.

Shot three assignments with my X and Lightroom CC. Quality is what I would get from a Micro 4/3 in 2011. Not amazing by dedicated camera standards but more than good enough. One thing a phone will never replace is the tactile experience of a well-made camera. Hopefully, camera companies will get busy on making their UI's up to date.

good camera for 99.99% of pop

Don't look too close, you might find that you're looking at a...smartphone image! Yuk!