[dsego]

This aligns with my experience as well. The bigger sensor does generate pictures that look more crisp in big prints or zoomed in. In theory it should gather more light, but in reality, phones stitch together multiple exposures, and frequently produce nicer low light images without much noise. For sharing on social media, it's hard to notice a difference. For me its event worse with the x100 since the wide lens doesn't have that signature compression and depth of field, so the photos don't really stand out that much, no wonder most x100 photographers rely on color filters (film sims) and high contrast to draw attention.

[bcraven]

I know of no phone camera that can produce the portraits of an X100s 23mm lens at f/2.

[_7acn]

Here you're talking about shallow depth of field which is desirable for portraits. But show me a camera that will have in JPG the dynamic range that you have in a smartphone by default? Show me a camera that will have as LARGE depth of field as smartphones have thanks to their small sensor.

These are all pros and cons depending on the scenario, but a phone has one advantage - it's small and you have it always with you.

[dsego]

Not sure what you mean by produce, it depends on lighting and photographer skill. Not like the 23mm is really a portrait lens either and f/2 isn't spectacular.