[kunai]

Hell no. The limitations of this sensor/optics size (regardless of fancy periscope tech) is apparent given how overreliant Apple has gotten on their DSP/image processing to produce 'better' images.

I've actually been more and more dissatisfied with the results from iPhones over the years; their sensors have had the same limitations with dynamic range and low-light ability for years but try to make up for it with fancy signal processing. It (mostly) works well when you look at these images on a small 6 inch screen, but blow them up to even a moderate sized computer monitor and they look pretty abysmal compared to even a basic entry-level mirrorless camera or DSLR.

The latter two have much less intrusive noise reduction and produce a far better looking honest, unprocessed image than any phone camera could. Shooting in RAW on an iPhone is proof of this; the raw sensor output is much, much noisier than a low-end DSLR in anything but peak noon outdoor lighting conditions.

That's not getting into many of the other benefits of dedicated cameras, like much more granular control over colors, WB, exposure, aperture, shutter speed, filters, true control over depth of field, more lens choices, etc, that are aided by the superior ergonomics. Cell phones have completely replaced point-and-shoots but large-sensor cameras and film cameras still blow the pants off of even the most sophisticated mobile cameras in terms of detail and versatility. The question is whether you have a use-case which calls for the greater expense and size of a camera like that.