[supernova87a]

I would appreciate if articles reviewing cameras did a better job of explaining why the pixel count is just a single (and highly manipulable) measure of imaging merit.

For all the pixel count, no company ever talks about pixel size (physical) and the noise characteristic as a result or the effective resolution. The imaging chip has not gotten physically larger between iPhones, I assume, so the pixels are just dividing the same light into more sites. Is this better?

People who don't know will just assume that 48 MP, well that's better than a Sony A7RIII now, right? Of course not.

[iLoveOncall]

The article is very explicitly aimed at photographers, it's on a photographer's website, it's a review about only the camera, the conclusion is titled "buying advice for photographers", etc.

If he was to explain what determines image quality, why not also demand that he explains aperture, focal length, etc.? It's just not aimed at that public.

[gpt5]

I'm not sure you are right here. The sensor size (and the lens speed) has been one of the key things Apple marketing has been leaning towards in the last few generations. Tech reviewers tend to repeat it back to their audience, which eventually lead to general consensus of Apple's camera system being superior.

[orbital-decay]

Sensor size in smartphones is also "highly manipulable", because the smartphones are very flat and have serious angle of incidence issues as the lens is too close to the sensor. If consumers demand larger sensors, sure it can be done - but it will reduce the amount of light that reaches the edges of the sensor, eating the possible increase in image quality. Smartphone cameras are limited by thickness, not by sensor sizes.

[Gigachad]

Apple has been making the cameras protrude out more every year for a while now.

[PapuaNewGuinea]

But smartphone cameras use telecentric lens…