It's mainly the postprocessing to make up for such a small sensor's downfalls that are clearly evident to me, in particular sharpening. Cell phone pictures can come out fine in bright light, but anything dim or dark will be a muddy mess at larger sizes in my experience.
I know I used it as an example, but 8x10s are also quite small. For a wall in a decent sized room I usually recommend 16x20 or so.
The kit is about $1500 on eBay these days. The body went from $1600 (new) to $700.
Lens technology is slow moving - at least for the middle prosumer market, and lenses keep their value. You can also upgrade the body and glass independently.
For a while, I thought we might get swappable sensors, but with IBIS and smarter chips that seems less likely.
These cameras retain their value pretty well, and thus so far, the camera tech in phones hasn’t turned into a race.
I've worked on digital video systems for the majority of my career, and watching digital television usually drives me insane because I notice the artifacts from poor compression. Do you think a similar effect is at work here? You have an 'eye' for photography and know what to look for. Most people do not.
Cell phone cameras capture a dimension of life you just wouldn't get with a traditional camera because you wouldn't be carrying the camera all the time. Further, it seems like cameras are a hugh investment(someone suggests a Sony in this thread. That's $1000!), and something to store and maintain. Also, from what I've seen, cameras and lenses are a theft magnet.