Slashdot Mirror
Which Company Makes the Best Camera Phone in 2018? Not Apple
Which smartphone takes the best photos? For years, the unequivocal answer to that question has been the iPhone. Apple has, for years, taken pride in the pictures its iPhones are able to capture. And rightly so. But over the years, the competition has been catching up, and now it feels like it has stolen that crown from the iPhone. Here's a review of various reviews of the iPhones.
The Verge, reviewing the iPhone 6 launched in 2014: There's one feature that stands out, though, the one that most strongly makes the iPhone 6's case as the best smartphone on the planet: the camera. A year later, The Verge reviews the iPhone 6s: But these improvements aren't dramatic, since the previous rear camera was already terrific. Still, the new rear camera will maintain the iPhone's position as the best smartphone camera around. In another review, it said: I noticed slightly better macro performance and slightly better bokeh in a few shots, but Apple's been taking iPhone 6 photos and blowing them up to put on billboards for a year, so the bar is pretty damn high. Let's put it this way: the iPhone 6S is the best camera most people will ever own, but it's not going to keep anyone out of the market for a mirrorless rig. The camera review of the iPhone 7 Plus: This all adds up to a decent improvement, but the iPhone 6S was already operating at the top of the scale, bested only recently by the latest cameras in the Galaxy S7 and Note 7. In low light, that faster lens and optical image stabilization means that the 7 significantly outperforms the 6S. But compared to the iPhone 6S, the iPhone 7 is a step improvement, not a major leap. The camera review of the last year's iPhone 8 Plus: Over the past year, the S8 and Pixel pulled ahead of the iPhone 7 in various tests. Apple told me they don't look at benchmarks closely, but the images from the iPhone 8 camera definitely look more like Apple's competitors than before. Like Samsung, iPhone images are now more saturated by default, although Apple says it's still aiming for realism instead of the saturated colors and smoothing of the S8. And HDR is just on all the time, like the Pixel -- you can't turn it off, although you can set it to save a non-HDR image as well. We ran around shooting with an iPhone 8, a Pixel XL, and S8, and iPhone 7 on auto, and the iPhone 8 produced the most consistent and richest images of the group, although the Pixel was the clear winner several times, especially in extreme low light. The camera review of the $1,000 iPhone X, which was also launched last year: Now that we have an iPhone X and the Google Pixel 2, we're going to do a super in-depth camera comparison, but here's what I can tell you right now: the iPhone X has basically the same cameras as the iPhone 8, and the photos look almost exactly the same. And at the end of the day, I tend to prefer the photos from the Pixel 2 XL. And now, the camera review of the iPhone XS and XS Max, which The Verge published Tuesday (video): The camera upgrades in the XS over the X are significant. But I'm just going to come out and say this: I don't think the iPhone XS has better cameras than the [Google] Pixel 2 ... and Pixel 3 comes out in just a few weeks. Don't get me wrong, it's a really good camera, and I think people are going to like the photos it takes. But the Pixel 2 is the standard to beat and the iPhone XS doesn't do it for me.
The Verge, reviewing the iPhone 6 launched in 2014: There's one feature that stands out, though, the one that most strongly makes the iPhone 6's case as the best smartphone on the planet: the camera. A year later, The Verge reviews the iPhone 6s: But these improvements aren't dramatic, since the previous rear camera was already terrific. Still, the new rear camera will maintain the iPhone's position as the best smartphone camera around. In another review, it said: I noticed slightly better macro performance and slightly better bokeh in a few shots, but Apple's been taking iPhone 6 photos and blowing them up to put on billboards for a year, so the bar is pretty damn high. Let's put it this way: the iPhone 6S is the best camera most people will ever own, but it's not going to keep anyone out of the market for a mirrorless rig. The camera review of the iPhone 7 Plus: This all adds up to a decent improvement, but the iPhone 6S was already operating at the top of the scale, bested only recently by the latest cameras in the Galaxy S7 and Note 7. In low light, that faster lens and optical image stabilization means that the 7 significantly outperforms the 6S. But compared to the iPhone 6S, the iPhone 7 is a step improvement, not a major leap. The camera review of the last year's iPhone 8 Plus: Over the past year, the S8 and Pixel pulled ahead of the iPhone 7 in various tests. Apple told me they don't look at benchmarks closely, but the images from the iPhone 8 camera definitely look more like Apple's competitors than before. Like Samsung, iPhone images are now more saturated by default, although Apple says it's still aiming for realism instead of the saturated colors and smoothing of the S8. And HDR is just on all the time, like the Pixel -- you can't turn it off, although you can set it to save a non-HDR image as well. We ran around shooting with an iPhone 8, a Pixel XL, and S8, and iPhone 7 on auto, and the iPhone 8 produced the most consistent and richest images of the group, although the Pixel was the clear winner several times, especially in extreme low light. The camera review of the $1,000 iPhone X, which was also launched last year: Now that we have an iPhone X and the Google Pixel 2, we're going to do a super in-depth camera comparison, but here's what I can tell you right now: the iPhone X has basically the same cameras as the iPhone 8, and the photos look almost exactly the same. And at the end of the day, I tend to prefer the photos from the Pixel 2 XL. And now, the camera review of the iPhone XS and XS Max, which The Verge published Tuesday (video): The camera upgrades in the XS over the X are significant. But I'm just going to come out and say this: I don't think the iPhone XS has better cameras than the [Google] Pixel 2 ... and Pixel 3 comes out in just a few weeks. Don't get me wrong, it's a really good camera, and I think people are going to like the photos it takes. But the Pixel 2 is the standard to beat and the iPhone XS doesn't do it for me.
I don't know who makes the best camera. But, Apple's photo-processing makes the best pictures. I carry Androids from Samsung and others and I always envy the beauty of iPhone pictures.
Really, I thought the 40Mp Nokia Lumia from several years ago kicked Apples ass....yes it was a Windows phone but the pictures were great compared to everything else...still not enough to make me give up my SLR but it was getting on par with the shitty point and shoots.
Maybe I missed something, but I always thought Samsung made the best camera phones in recent years.
(Nice subtle advertisement btw)
'Nuff said.
... but not professional photographers. DXO Mark is a bit more respected, and put the iPhone X at the top, and we can wait and see for the new crop. Some layman saying “I like ...” is not a great metric.
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
The original pixel's camera was better than anything the iPhone offered also. Apple fell off the podium years ago, not just recently. Even Sony's camera's stomped all over apple.
Love its camera setup. Like many modern phones, there's an extra camera on the back, but rather than being telephoto or wide angle or the like, it's greyscale, and designed solely for getting intensity values in low light. So they maximize the light data for a given amount of sensor area, and then correlate it to the color data from the primary camera.
While the benefit is nice in still pictures, it really shines in motion. Some great comparisons here.
Also like how the phone doesn't try to make still shots look better by running everything through sharpness filters and upping the saturation. It gives you something much closer to raw data so you can choose how to present it. Its 920 fps 1080p slow motion is really impressive, too.
"Who the hell is Nietzche? It's a question stupid people are asking." -- Newscaster, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
More to the point for actual tech folks: Is it still possible to get a flip-phone without a camera? You know, a telephone that only does telephone things with an actual keyboard. I have a nice camera when I need one, and a computer for network stuff. Keep It Simple...
The Pixel 3 photo sensor is still only 1/2.3"... the same as my P&S camera from 2004. It's a phone. The photos are best for snapshots and, if the light is really good, the occasional "serious" photo. Who cares *that* much about image quality? It's still far better than a Kodak Disc camera. Or a 110. (Yes, I'm old.) And the phone is always in your pocket, ready to go.
More important question: when are they going to stop making phones so damned huge? The Internet sucks on a phone. Stop trying to make it a do-all web terminal.
For years other companies have been making phones with better cameras, it is not news. Making a selection of advertising disguised as news to claim otherwise is bs.
Their cameras are fine.
Fact: I have no interest in carrying around another Android phone right now. The photos coming from the latest iPhones look excellent. As Apple pointed out in their presentation, even a cover photo for Time magazine was shot with one. So arguing whether or not a Google Pixel has a better camera is, IMO, a bit pointless. I mean, kudos to Google for making that good a camera in their phone .... I just fail to see how it changes anything? Very few people who prefer using iOS to Android's OS would switch products to a Pixel phone just because of the slightly better camera capabilities.
If the camera functionality is THE most critical factor for you? I'm wondering why you didn't invest in an SLR to use for your photography instead? A good SLR will still handily beat even Google's Pixel 3 when it comes out.
My girlfriend has the latest iPhone through her work, I have the latest Pixel, whenever we go to use her camera, her comment is "no, use your phone, it takes better photos". We discovered this pretty early on in our relationship, her phone only comes out for photos if mine is across the room or has run out of battery.
If it weren't for the camera, I would just buy any standard $200-class android phone, but since the Pixel takes such fantastic photos, it is worth the extra $400 to have a high quality camera built in to the phone for wherever I go.
To those making the "just take an SLR with you" well great, we own an SLR, it lives in the closet and comes out for weddings and that is just about it. You get 99% of the quality with 500% more compactness. No contest.
Looking forward to the Pixel 3, my display is pretty scratched at this point (only phone where this has ever been a problem since the Nexus S) and the battery is fully worn out.
moox. for a new generation.
Yeah. Sure.
Apple still wins out as being one of the few cameras that can support European broadcast frame rates in its video.
Look, everyone has their phone with them nearly all... the... time, and it is simply not practical for most people to carry around a DSLR or even a moderately sized P&S everywhere they go. Thus, even if one prefers a "real" camera, they WILL run into situations where they have only their phone, period. That's life. Thus, they will end up being much happier if the (phone) camera they have with them is one of the best available.
Saying "just buy a camera, 'nuff said" is all very well and good, but does NOTHING to solve the above problem. You can buy a dozen "real" cameras, but unless you ram one down your pants you might not have it with you at that unexpected moment when you really want to capture an image.
But, Tim Cook does not sell the Pixel 3.
So, what is the point of it?
Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
eom
nowadays i can buy a $200 used android phone and get better results, plus it's a fully functional phone, a computer in its own right. there's still a time and place for great cameras, but you already carry a phone around anyway, so it's nice the cameras on smartphones are only getting better and better over time.
The iPhone camera has never been a superior camera to real full fledged digital cameras (of their time).
Smartphone cameras don't (usually) make superior images to "real" cameras. But smartphone cameras do several things FAR better than "real" cameras, most related to work flow for certain types of tasks.
1) Far better ability to share and back up images via the internet. Any picture I snap with my smartphone is automatically backed up to the cloud and can be shared immediately via email, text message, or social media. Not so much for "real" cameras which still require plugging in a cable or pulling out an SD card and finding a PC somewhere. They are seriously terrible at this and it's costing them dearly in sales against smartphones.
2) Bigger and more useful screens to view and edit images. Better touch screens too.
3) Fit in my pocket. I can carry my smartphone almost everywhere. Not so much for my bulky "real" camera. The best camera is the one you have with you. I'm not lugging a Sony A9 with a 70-200F2.8 around very often - the thing weighs the better part of 2kg and is bulky as heck. Awesome under the right circumstances and yes it makes better images but that comes at a cost both financial and in work flow. Hard to justify if you aren't getting paid to take pictures. Even compact point and shoot cameras like the RX100 which make great images are still bulkier than my smartphone and can't do anything else besides take images.
4) Has a FAR more elegant interface for basic shooting. Seriously the interfaces on interchangeable lens cameras are universally awful and almost useless for anything more than basic chimping.
5) Unless you get into some pretty pricey gear smartphones often actually do as good or better on video than a shocking number of "real" cameras for certain applications.
So called "real" cameras get better images (if you know what you are doing) but there is a LOT of overhead in achieving that. The work flow for basic point and shoot picture taking and image sharing is vastly superior on smartphones than any "real" camera. No they can't get the best possible image in most cases but most of the time that's not important to most people. There is a reason why the point and shoot camera market has basically died despite the fact that they can produce measurably better images. Image quality is NOT the only thing that matters for most people most of the time. The overhead, shitty work flow, and bulky equipment required to achieve these (usually marginally) better images with "real" cameras is simply not worth the hassle. And I say this as someone who is a photography enthusiast with a lot of very expensive camera bodies and lenses.
If there is an innovative disruptive Silicon Valley genius out there who wants to do something, how about a really cheap, reliable cell phone that JUST makes calls and texts?
No money in it. Seriously the number of people who would actually buy this is so small that it is not really worth addressing. It's cheaper to just include the camera and if the user doesn't want it they don't have to use it.
iPhone's camera is made by Sony.
It's obviously not apple, because apple barely makes anything.
The Verge is roughly The National Enquirer of Tech Journalism.
Basically you only read their shit if you're a voracious reader, the website was auto-loaded by some ad malware and your internet went down immediately afterward.
Otherwise, you'd get more value out of trying to read used toilet paper.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I've known several extremely talented photographers over the years, so I don't actually remember which one passed along this tidbit of wisdom... but it stuck with me. No matter how much money you spend on cameras and flashes and props and all that... the very best camera is always incredibly easy to identify: Simply put, it's the one you have with you.
In the long run, it really doesn't matter how much "better" that other camera that you left at home (or didn't buy) is; if that amazing, potentially award winning shot is in front of you right now, just snap the picture with whatever you have. If your kids are being incredibly cute right now, snap the picture. If your wife is looking particularly beautiful right at this moment, just snap the damned picture. And be happy that you were there to enjoy that moment, when it came.
It's immensely frustrating and has been going on for years.
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7691303?page=67
My 4s took better shots. Even when I look at them on my 6s+ display. I see people complaining about the 7 and 8 with the same issues, and I immediately can tell an iPhone photo when somebody sends it to me.
In anything other than bright daylight, the watercolor effect on the images due to compression are horrible.
I would hate to have to give up the iPhone because I'm sick of the photos of my children looking embarrassingly bad, but the privacy issues around Google are difficult to accept.
Loading up the raw photo apps is probably the right way to go, but it's such a pain in the butt.
Compact point and shoots still have _crappy_ glass. Better than a cell phone, but still crap.
That's not true at all. There are some point and shoots with very good quality glass. Far better than smartphones in the right hands. The problem point and shoots have is that their workflow after the picture is taken SUCKS and they are one trick ponies. They take good pictures just fine but then what? They offer nothing after that. With a smartphone I can edit the photo, add filters, back it up to the cloud, share it with my friends, post to social media, all within seconds. And I have a device that does other things. The makers of point and shoot cameras have completely shit the bed in realizing that for these cameras it's the workflow that matters more than the image. They never bothered to make them web connected, give them editing and social media tools, etc which would actually make the possibly worth bothering with. They still live in the SD card to a PC world which smartphones made obsolete years ago.
If they wanted to make a point and shoot relevant again it should have LTE and wifi. It should back up to dropbox and the cloud. It should have a big and good touch screen. High quality glass. GPS and location tagging. Seamless transfer to tablets. It should have image processing better than that on a smartphone. Image cataloging. Flip screens for vlogging. It should have 4K video at high frame rates and tools to actually do something useful with it IN CAMERA. All this should be automated to a high degree in a compact size and the cost cannot be more than a smartphone. Better images only matter when you can actually use them to do what you want and taking the picture is just the start. Nobody wants a point and shoot camera that can only take pictures and can't do anything in post. Smartphone makers understand this and camera makers remain utterly clueless about it.
Oh and a LOT of these complaints apply to high end pro cameras too. They also have shit interfaces and terrible connectivity and work flow. Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc all persist with the delusion that only image quality and physical ergonomics matter. And this myopia will cost them dearly.
It's obviously not apple, because apple barely makes anything.
Apple makes software. They are a software company. People seem to have a hard time with this concept but it's true. Companies are what they make and what Apple makes and sets their products apart is software. The hardware in an iPhone is really barely different than any similar Android phone. A Mac's hardware is nearly identical to any Windows PC. What Apple sells people is the software in a pretty box. People who think Apple is a hardware company don't understand their business model.
The same Verge that posted, defended, and, eventually, took down this How to build a PC video while complaining that the critics were all just a bunch of racists? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jciJ39djxC4
Yea, pardon me if I really don't trust their judgement.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Just 'Be Brave' and suck it up!
love is just extroverted narcissism
Good digital cameras do not exist in a vacuum, and manufacturers have known this for a dozen years and have really compensated for it.
1. A good digital camera these days will pair with your smartphone, such that every time you snap a picture, one or more versions of it appear on the phone, potentially also triggering any number of secondary actions like watermarking, cropping, and uploading to multiple services. My favorite app for this purpose is "shuttersnitch".
2. In much the same way you can pair the camera with a tablet, such as an iPad, and get a very large screen indeed for previews, and use it from several feet away. The UI argument is a moot point, given the diversity of options, except:
3. "Ease of use" may not be what you think it is, if you're coming from the smartphone camera world. A purpose-built digital camera can go from OFF, to zoomed, precisely focused, and taking the picture, in less than a second. That includes zooming to the edge of, say, a 400mm lens: You just turn a large, easily accessible physical ring. See how long it takes to do the finger-spread or slider-drag equivalent on a smartphone -- even just to adjust the zoom slightly.
4. If you think a real camera only produces "marginally better" photos in most situations, try using a real camera with an f1.4 full-frame lens in a dimly lit room. Or try catching the action at a soccer game with even a reasonably priced 70-200mm lens like the Canon f/4.
The smartphone has one real thing going for it: Miniaturization. That is also its Achilles heel, because you simply cannot grab as much light on a smaller surface area. But as I pointed out earlier, the direct comparison doesn't even make sense. Almost ALL people who seriously use a good purpose-built camera ALSO own a smartphone, and have known how to integrate the two for years.
Still the best, continuum also
Might as well wait till WPA3 right !
If you want a digital camera, or a film camera, or even a motion picture camera ...
Buy one.
This is a smartphone. If you're using it for other things, you probably shouldn't.
I'll be honest, I've actually used a lot of the features of smartphones, but it wasn't why I bought that phone.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I don't know how "best" might be defined. Pixels? Resolution? Color quality? At some point, when all the phone cameras are taking good photographs, I don't think it matters much. My iPhone 8 takes very good pictures. My Essential PH1 phone takes very good pictures. Which one is better? Damn if I can tell.
The best camera is the one you have with you all the time; you can have the most phenomenal camera in the universe in your closet at home, but the one you have is better than the one over there. And at some point, people are just arguing over trivial bragging rights.
Wait when did sane technical people start treating the Verge like a big boy website ?
Wouldn't all these workflow problems if the cameras just transferred the image instantly to your smartphone (will you will be carrying anyways)?
Yes and no. It would be a quick fix and it's shocking that they cannot already do it efficiently. Even my Sony A9 which gets awesome images makes it a huge pain in the ass to get the pictures where I need them after taking them. It has wifi but the software to connect to it SUCKS. It has an ethernet RJ45 port built in that I cannot do anything but connect to an FTP server with!?! WTF? This isn't the 1990s... But even if they could transfer quickly the problem for dedicated cameras remains. Why would I carry a camera that in most cases takes at best marginally better images than my smartphone if it has no other advantages? Most people want a "good enough" image most of the time and it's the post processing efficiency that actually matters most.
I don't know jack about regular cameras but someone has to have done something like this. Transferring the photos via bluetooth or something.
Here's the funny thing. The cameras routinely already have wifi, bluetooth, gps, usb, (sometimes) ethernet, etc. My Sony mirrorless already has all that and more. It's really just a question of software. But the engineers making these cameras are utter fuckwits about this topic. I should be able to have my images back up to the cloud in real time as I'm taking them. The hardware is already in my camera to do it. I should be able to crop, filter, and share *in camera*. It's just software that is required. They need to make it as easy as humanly possible to take amazing images and then to do something but they are still stuck with thinking we are back in the days of film. If I'm going to lug around a purpose built camera it has to be a category killer in every way, including post processing to make it worth the bother. It has to be BETTER than a smartphone for image taking AND processing. But somehow smartphones are kicking the ass of cameras in post processing in almost every imaginable way.
The thing that tends to limit point-and-shoot cameras is the crappy software. Software is also what makes phone cameras great.
Exactly. This is exactly right. The hardware in the dedicated camera (point and shoot as well as pro cameras) is more than good enough but the software for interfacing and post processing is absolutely horrible. Doesn't matter which camera vendor you are talking about either - they are all terrible.
If you could get a point-and-shoot that had, say, the computational photography stuff in a Google Pixel phone it would be awesome. But you can't, so there is a very good chance that despite the smaller sensor and technically worse optics the Pixel will give you a better photo.
I don't think I could have said it better. Why bother carrying a dedicated camera if my phone takes good enough image quality and has vastly better post processing?
1. A good digital camera these days will pair with your smartphone, such that every time you snap a picture, one or more versions of it appear on the phone, potentially also triggering any number of secondary actions like watermarking, cropping, and uploading to multiple services. My favorite app for this purpose is "shuttersnitch".
Good digital cameras (and I own several) do nothing of the sort out of the box and the software provided with them to share images is almost universally terrible. I shouldn't have to invest in third party applications to get a useful work flow. And you are missing the point. Aside from professional photographers, if you have to pair the camera to a smartphone or tablet to get useful workflows then for most people for most circumstance it's better for them to just carry the phone or tablet and drop the camera entirely. And that is EXACTLY what has happened to the point and shoot market. The camera needs to be BETTER as a standalone device for image manipulation, computational photography, post processing, and image sharing than smartphones but currently they are often way behind.
2. In much the same way you can pair the camera with a tablet, such as an iPad, and get a very large screen indeed for previews, and use it from several feet away. The UI argument is a moot point, given the diversity of options, except:
Bullshit the UI argument is moot. If I have to pair it with a phone or a tablet to get a useful preview screen and post processing tools then 99% of users will be better off dropping the dedicate camera entirely and just using the pretty darn good camera in the phone/tablet. It's only a tiny fraction of photographers that actually need the extra imaging capabilities of a dedicated camera. If the camera cannot do a better job with image quality AND post processing than a phone then the cameras are going to lose every time. This is what happened to point and shoot cameras. They have basically died as a market because smartphones have images that are almost as good, video that is often better, are easier to use, and can do other things as well.
Furthermore have you actually used the software interfaces on Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc ILCs? They are horrible. I primarily shoot Sony and their menu systems are an abomination. Their Playmemories software almost could not be more awkward to use. Canon and Nikon aren't meaningfully better either. All of them are trapped in the past and need some serious lessons in software UI design.
3. "Ease of use" may not be what you think it is, if you're coming from the smartphone camera world. A purpose-built digital camera can go from OFF, to zoomed, precisely focused, and taking the picture, in less than a second. That includes zooming to the edge of, say, a 400mm lens: You just turn a large, easily accessible physical ring. See how long it takes to do the finger-spread or slider-drag equivalent on a smartphone -- even just to adjust the zoom slightly.
You are only talking about the actual image capture which is maybe 20% of the work. Purpose built cameras generally do this just fine. It's the image sharing and post processing IN CAMERA where they shit the bed. Smartphones often do FAR better computational photography (particularly for video) than purpose built cameras and they are light years ahead in image sharing, software interface, and post processing tools. The only thing dedicated cameras reliably do better is get better image quality and only then in the hands of someone who actually knows what they are doing and has the right glass.
4. If you think a real camera only produces "marginally better" photos in most situations, try using a real camera with an f1.4 full-frame lens in a dimly lit room. Or try catching the action at a soccer game with even a reasonably priced 70-200mm lens like the Canon f/4.
That isn't what I said. I do all of these things and have even gotten
For truly "serious" photographers, none of those things matter nearly as much as being able to get as many photons to as many silicon photosites as quickly as possible.
If you think that then you don't know many serious photographers. Being a serious photographer is far more complicated than having the biggest possible glass and most pixels.
Which is why a Phase One IQ3 costs 50 grand without lens and can't do any of the the above except via expensive tethering software tied to a PC.
The Phase One products are aimed at a tiny fraction of a fraction of the market even among professional photographers. Most people that get paid for their photos do not use equipment like this and they certainly are not the demarcation line for what makes a "serious photographer".
I strongly agree with your first point, but this point is absolute nonsense. I can't speak for your Sony a9, but I have owned 4 Canon bodies and the interface is far more functional than android or ios.
Sigh... No it is not. I'm not talking about the act of capturing the image. Dedicated cameras mostly handle the actual image capture just fine. I'm talking about everything before and after and particularly about the software. I've used Canon's too and their software UI is just as bad as anyone else. Setting up your camera to get a good work flow requires a lot of training and needless configuration of the software. Doesn't matter which camera maker you prefer, they are all pretty bad. Sony, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, doesn't matter - their UIs suck. Some are marginally better than others but none are good. But as bad as that is it is the post processing interface and functionality where they really shit the bed. Smartphones run rings around dedicated cameras for everything after the picture is taken and the sad thing is that the reason is just that they have better software for that which could be put into dedicated cameras too. There is no technical limitation on what "real" cameras can do but just failings of the engineering teams designing the things.
Real cameras take better pictures. If you think otherwise, you really need to learn how to use your camera. I've never met a knowledgeable professional who disagrees. We don't buy these expensive, bulky cameras for show. They really do take MUCH better pictures.
No, they CAN take better pictures in the hands of someone who knows what they are doing. For most people a smartphone camera is more than adequate and is far easier to use. And I know photographers that can reliably get better images from a shitty toy camera than most people can with the fanciest gear money can buy because skill matters.
What I have failed to communicate is that this advantage in image quality is really the ONLY thing they do better and that is NOT enough. Int a lot of cases it doesn't matter much at all. My Sony A9 should be able to do everything and more than my smartphone can do with an image IN CAMERA and it cannot. I should be able to out of the box share images to dropbox or instagram or facebook with minimal configuration. I should be able to crop, filter, adjust and process images in camera. I should be able to email, text or share images. And it needs to do these things as well as or better than my smartphone. The point and shoot camera market died because the improved image quality is only a piece of the puzzle and often not the most important piece.
If you are a pro shooting for the cover of Nat Geo then yeah, image quality trumps everything else. The overwhelming majority of photos and photographers do not fall into this category most of the time and camera makers forget that at their peril.