The iPhone isn’t intended to compete with DSLRs because it’s literally a phone that fits in your pocket.

Phones don’t compete with DSLRs because they serve different purposes.

I can’t realistically carry a DSLR or mirrorless camera everywhere. I can, however, keep my phone in my pocket all the time. That’s why it’s so great to have these reviews from professional photographers to show what’s capable in the context of the phone.

It’s not about DSLR versus iPhone. It’s about what’s possible from the device I always have in my pocket.

I'm not sure how you measure "intent", but I think there's fairly strong evidence that smartphone cameras have harmed the DSRL market. Sales are about half of what they were in 2008. This isn't just people moving to mirrorless either. Sales of all camera formats are down. Smartphones basically killed the market for compact cameras, whose sales today are down about 90% in the same timeframe.

The high end stuff is doing well with content creators and professionals. You can see this in the move upmarket of things like Sony A6600 ($1400 APS-C camera) and RX100 series ($1300 compact camera) that are aimed at creators in the attention economy. I think from here on we'll see smartphone needs driving sensor development, but that doesn't mean the camera market is dead.

The high end stuff keeps getting better, just like every technology keeps getting better, but I don't know if it's "doing well" in the sense that overall sales of high end camera gear are increasing.

As far as I can tell, that entire market segment is shrinking. I'm not saying it's dead or even dying, but I do think it's getting smaller.

You always carry your phone, but not your dslr. For an untrained eye, the iPhone 11,12 photos look gorgeous.

For professionals of course there is no debate, regardless what Apple marketing is claiming.

I used to carry a small camera at all times in my bag, yes. Mostly a Canon G11 and at times an Olympus XA. But this was a long time ago as I no longer pass by any points of real interest (to me) on my commute.

But, let me get back to what I am trying to convey. From my perspective, phones on cameras (combined with social media) created a new class of photographers that would be most closely related to those that previously had cheap point-and-shoot cameras (if even a camera at all) with fixed lenses that are easy to operate but gets the job done to document something. The results will be subpar, but that does not matter as the point is not something abstract like “bokeh”, the desire is to document something visually to have it become a memory or communicate an event to someone else visually in a less artistic sense than a “real” photographer. This is why I find discussions about how digital depth of field is not authentic largely to miss the point. This class of photographers do not care, they want good aesthetics – yes – but it is not something they actively seek out like a “true” photographer.

But here is the kicker, I doubt that without a readily available camera in their phone these people would ever have become photographers in the first place and this is why the camera phone vs DSLR discussion annoys me. This new class of photographers did not make a conscious choice between shooting with a phone, point-and-shoot, mirrorless, or DSLR. They used what was already there to communicate and when a new camera phone comes around they enjoy the fact that they get better aesthetics out of it than their old one. In a sense, I doubt they even view their phone as a camera in the first place.

So, it is a spectrum ranging from camera phone up to medium format madness. But I think most of these discussions are had by the 5% such as myself (and yourself) that consider weight, dynamic range, glass, etc. Rather than the 95% who probably do not even perceive themselves as photographers in the first place – although they certainly are.

Regarding portability, yes point-and-shoots are portABLE, but in reality you don’t have them in your pocket 100% of the time, like you have a smartphone. You need to think about packing one more thing, that you may or may not need, so you won’t bother.

In summary, with a point-and shoot you are making two compromises: 1)photo quality 2)availability. In my opinion they are worse both than a DSLR and a good smartphone.

That's the thing, though. Many of us, especially men (but many women as well, including my wife) do not carry around a bag or wear a bulky jacket with pockets big enough for even the smallest mirrorless. So packing one along everywhere I go wouldn't be any more convenient than just grabbing the bag with my 7D.

No way I’d do that with an (outdated) DSLR though.

Speaking for myself, if I'm going out without any special goal, I'll just have my phone, keys, and wallet.

The one thing that can’t really be replaced is zoom.

I like shooting outdoor on telephoto (135mm+), and there the phones are nowhere as competitive, and won’t be for a long time, if ever. Actually that’s where the progress in standalone cameras is: more compact telephoto lenses, sharper zooms, faster autofocus, even less noise. And no, multiframe fusion won’t help when you’re shooting quick action.