> Not to mention that today it seems that every phone is taking advantage of computational image processing in order to give a more "DSLR like" image, while ILC cameras aren't implementing this at all.

When it comes to ILC cameras, the role of processing is fulfilled by the photographer's editing software (e.g. Lightroom, Capture One Pro, Photoshop, RawTherapee, Darktable etc.). Especially these days, with the camera market being decimated by smartphones, the kind of person who uses a dedicated camera usually wants control over the processing.

> I'm sure in many cases a cellphone camera will shoot a better image than something like your RX100 due to this.

The out of camera JPEG on a smartphone might look nicer than an out of camera JPEG on an RX100M6 but after a bit of processing with the right software, the RX100M6 will blow it away. The resolution, dynamic range and noise characteristics are all much better. The RX100M6 can even shoot 24fps RAW for quick HDR brackets if you need it to.

Smartphones will definitely produce a nice image easier than a real camera but a real camera in the end, with the right work, still produces a better image.

It's sad that these DSLRs can't yet use the real fast video-mode non-binned sensor readout to just buffer 3 wide bracketed exposures to RAM and then write them out slowly. One of those exposures will be rather long anyway... Shooting HDR quickly has the benefit that while you want something to reduce rotational shake, you don't need to be much longer in the position than the exposure time itself dictates. You can use the time you need to move to a new angle/direction to compress and store the RAWs, as barely anyone has hardware capable of yanking the camera to a new angle in a few milliseconds, just alone due to the power density needed to have something able to do this compact enough for casual handling. Imagine it like a much, much faster clockwork, with the purpose to deliver dozens of kilowatts for a few milliseconds to accelerate the camera and slow it right back down. Almost no one has such a thing that would keep the device steady during the exposure, but permit very short spacing between exposures that change the direction it is pointing by more than 20% FOV. If you were to rotate the camera that fast at over 50fps, good luck with the light you need (hint: your lens can't provide DOF at the aperture you need to do this even in full sunlight (sunny 16 rule)).

> It's sad that these DSLRs can't yet use the real fast video-mode non-binned sensor readout to just buffer 3 wide bracketed exposures to RAM and then write them out slowly.

They essentially can. The A7RIII and RX100M6 can both shoot RAW to their buffers at 24fps then write it out. A full bracket usually takes less than a second and works just fine handheld.

> Shooting HDR quickly has the benefit that while you want something to reduce rotational shake, you don't need to be much longer in the position than the exposure time itself dictates. You can use the time you need to move to a new angle/direction to compress and store the RAWs, as barely anyone has hardware capable of yanking the camera to a new angle in a few milliseconds, just alone due to the power density needed to have something able to do this compact enough for casual handling. Imagine it like a much, much faster clockwork, with the purpose to deliver dozens of kilowatts for a few milliseconds to accelerate the camera and slow it right back down. Almost no one has such a thing that would keep the device steady during the exposure, but permit very short spacing between exposures that change the direction it is pointing by more than 20% FOV. If you were to rotate the camera that fast at over 50fps, good luck with the light you need (hint: your lens can't provide DOF at the aperture you need to do this even in full sunlight (sunny 16 rule)).

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. It sounds like maybe you're after some kind of automtaed panorama bracketing or something?

Yes, a device for such fast rotating would allow for fast panorama capture, allowing things that are not possible without really fast capture of a high resolution panorama. E.g., things like high resolution 360 degree timelapses, etc.

No, when you have a bigger pixel size you have also a better dynamic range and s/n ratio. There is no substitute for pixel size in sensors with the same technology. If you compare different sensors technologies, like front-illuminated vs back-illuminated than at the same pixel size the back illuminated has clear advantages. The computational image processing can be applied also to bigger sensors, so it doesn’t make any sense to compare the raw capacity of a big sensor camera with the processed output of a phone camera. I don’t really think that you have ever seen the output of an RX-100 if you judge it inferior to cellphone cameras.

The reasons I say it is complex is because depending on the sensor technology, resolution, image pipeline, etc. there are many different ways you could compare image quality. If you compare extremely different sensors, like a 1/3" and full frame, then of course the larger sensor will be better, but comparing say a 1/2" sensor with a 1" sensor is less clear.

The smaller pixel sensor will have a better resolution in lp/mm for example, if downscaled to the same resolution as a lower resolution sensor, in many cases you will end up with an image with better detail and less noise (due to averaging out the noise). This is why cameras like the Sony A7iii take a 6K readout and downsample it to 4K for video output.

My comment about computational processing still stands though. While a RAW file will give you much more ability to process, complex computational processing just isn't used to nearly the same level in any raw processor I'm aware of (DxO Photolab is probably the most advanced at this, but still is relatively basic), which does make it a valid comparison at the moment. The simple fact is that small sensors these days have closed the gap with larger sensors significantly, while there are areas they are inadequate in, there are other shooting conditions where the differences are minimal which is a statement I would have scoffed at when I started working with cameras 6 years ago.

The sensor size has nothing to do with the image quality. Bigger sensors, at the same pixel count, have better quality only because their pixel are bigger. If you have a 100 mpx full frame it will have worse quality of a 1/2.3” at 8 mpx if they have the same technology.