> My new cellphone literally has a Hasselblad camera on it

Sorry to bust your bubble, but no, your phone doesn't have a Hasselblad camera on it.

It has a lens that Hasselblad worked on, together with the vendor.

Which in itself tells more about brand dilution, and the market loss of cameras to phones, than the quality of your phone's camera.

And how long has it been since Hasselblad has been particularly relevant? They were sliced into pieces, and now they are owned by DJI.

https://www.slrlounge.com/dji-now-majority-shareholder-of-ha...

It might be even worse, if I recall correctly, Hasselblad might be only responsible for the color science.

> It's not like that company would put their brand on anything crap.

No, but that company no longer exists and the owners of the brand really have no problem selling the name for use on crap. You simply bought into that myth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasselblad#Fuji,_Shriro,_Imaco...

It's true that I bought into the myth, but it's also because I don't care; as not-a-photographer, this seems to do a great job of taking pictures of my baby & dogs, at a resolution at least as good as the screen I look at them on. Anything else is gravy.

Fair enough. I think the main takeaway is that photographic gear is now so dirt cheap that branding and really high end gear only matters to the pros, everybody else could just use their phone. That won't stop a whole bunch of them from buying stuff they don't need, but that's fine, it brings the price down for the professionals.

Sure, there’s a camera manufacturer involved in making cell phone cameras. What you’re missing is only the small matter of inherent physical advantages of larger sensors and lenses.