Mirrorless hasn't only won the battle, it's won the war. Last year — 2020 — was a landmark as more mirrorless cameras were shipped than DSLRs. It is the primary design choice for manufacturers and is therefore the future of the camera. However, the future of photography undoubtedly lies with the smartphone.
It appears so obvious looking back over the last ten years, that it seems inconceivable that mirrorless wasn't considered the future of camera design when it first appeared. However, the vested interests of CaNikon kept the DSLR dream alive — along with their income streams — which let other manufacturers dabble to see what the market was interested in. And dabble they did after Olympus and Panasonic debuted Micro Four Thirds, with Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Fuji, and Leica all introducing new systems. This has to be viewed within the context of global camera shipments which peaked at 121 million units (¥1643 million) in 2010. OK, of these some 109 million were integrated cameras — high quantity, low value — but it did generate significant income and profit for manufacturers which in part funded the system development. But as soon as that spike in income had arrived, it rapidly began to disappear with 2020 marking a new low point of 9 million units shipped (¥420 million).
The following year, 2011, also saw mirrorless make their first appearance in CIPA data (below) which showed 4 million units shipping, meaning that uptake was rapid by consumers and principally focused around Panasonic, Olympus, and Sony. While DSLR shipments imploded, mirrorless has remained flat in a falling market meaning that they made up an increasingly larger share. 2020 was a landmark year in that more mirrorless cameras were shipped than DSLR; 33%, as opposed to 27%, of total shipments.
This is important enough in itself, however, it is the financials that are more impressive. Mirrorless was close to DSLR shipment values by 2018 and exceeded them in 2019. By 2020 they made up 54% of all camera shipments, compared to DSLR's 25%. Of course, by this point, both Canon and Nikon had released their own mirrorless systems and essentially stopped further DSLR development while reducing production. While it's true that consumers wanted to buy mirrorless systems, manufacturers also stopped making them in volume.
Will manufacturers stop making DSLRs? Of course not. As long as there are a minimum viable number of customers, then someone will plug that gap. Apparently, that's Pentax at the moment. Not only that, but there will continue to be a large number of active DSLR shooters who will want to buy lenses and accessories. You wouldn't necessarily say that mirrorless won a decisive battle in one-up-manship, but rather slowly chipped away at that seemingly impenetrable DSLR exterior. The biggest slug came with Sony's a7 in 2013 showing that a mirrorless full frame model was viable; in fact not one model, but three. The battle was won by 2016 at the latest as Canon and Nikon pivoted into developing their own systems. Was it that cameras were smaller and lighter? Or those significant improvements in on-chip focusing brought significant advantages? Or that shorter flange distances allowed a range of interesting lens designs and the adaptation of existing lenses? Or maybe high burst rates? Or perhaps it was just because it was a new system. Either way, the traction is now there and DSLRs have become niche.
Mirrorless is the future of camera design.
Long Live the Smartphone
Mirrorless cameras are only half of the photography equation. That dramatic drop in CIPA camera shipments from 121 million in 2010 doesn't mean there are fewer cameras shipping. Far from it, as in 2019 some 1,500 million smartphones shipped, depending upon whose figures you believe. Every single one of those had a camera in it. It's perhaps self-evident that the smartphone has all but killed the camera industry, but the scale and enormity of putting a camera in the hands of 7.5 billion people or about 96% of the global population is truly astonishing. We are genuinely at a point where virtually everybody takes a photo; no wonder Google stopped unlimited free photo storage!
Now obviously smartphones do far more than take photos, but this remains an important component of any phone design to the point that there has been a continual arms race since the original iPhone which shows no sign of abating. Talking of Apple, they held a 14.5% market share in 2019, lagging behind Huawei (17.6%), and Samsung (21.8%). Does that sound familiar? Yes, three companies control some 54% of the smartphone market so what they do with their cameras is critical not just to other smartphone manufacturers but also to camera manufacturers. In fact, while we see some inroads in partnerships between smartphone and camera manufacturers, it's surprising this isn't more widespread and, indeed, that the partnerships don't work in both directions. Hasselblad recently partnered with OnePlus, but we have seen Leica and Huawei, Zeiss with Sony (and a number of others), and possibly Samsung with Olympus.
What's interesting is that the developments we are seeing at the moment in some ways mirror the introduction of the Kodak Brownie in 1900. Up to this point, technological development had been rapid but largely focused on gradual improvements to the large format camera. Photography was an expensive undertaking and the Brownie democratized it to the extent that, while not trivial in cost, anyone could afford it (it was $1 at release, equivalent to $31 today). For example, it was targeted at soldiers and even children. The Brownie grew out of the development of roll film and the realization that everything for photo taking could be included in the (cardboard) box and then sent back to the manufacturer for processing. This then led to making a loss on the sale of the camera but a profit on the film and processing. Two strands of photography were subsequently developed based around large format cameras and low-cost roll film cameras. In some ways, those strands were at least partly re-unified with the release of the Leica 1 in 1924 when 35mm roll film was partnered with technologically innovative development.
Are we seeing the same with the smartphone? Two drivers are at play here: firstly the need for eye-popping images that look great on social media and secondly tight design requirements. The latter involves low-cost, small, devices that have fixed lenses. Smartphone manufacturers are aware that to get better images they can — to a certain extent — compute their way out of the problem, a charge that has been led by Google. However, they are inevitably restricted by the hardware they have at their disposal. Involving camera manufacturers is, therefore, a sensible decision.
The different design criteria have led to a divergent focus for camera development, one that is arguably now the direction that photography is taking. Smartphone manufacturers are incorporating new and creative hardware designs to work alongside their software implementations. What we are not seeing is camera manufacturers developing innovative standalone cameras. Computational photography has been a core aspect of photography in smartphones for a decade, yet we have seen limited implementations by camera manufacturers and certainly nothing that rivals the likes of Apple or Google. This is now becoming a yawning gap that has the potential to make camera manufacturers irrelevant or even allow a new manufacturer to enter the marketplace.
We will always need high-end cameras for high-end photography commissions, but the gap between the smartphone and camera has shrunk considerably to the point where it is indistinguishable for many applications, something that Ben Von Wong pushed with his commission for the Huawei P8.
Lead image courtesy Pexels via Pixabay, used under Creative Commons.
If you're passionate about taking your photography to the next level but aren't sure where to dive in, check out the Well-Rounded Photographer tutorial where you can learn eight different genres of photography in one place. If you purchase it now, or any of our other tutorials, you can save a 15% by using "ARTICLE" at checkout.
I think a lot of people forget that it’s the end result that matters.
It is estimated that 1.2 trillion photographs were made in 2020. Statistically, the percentage of those that were made with pro or semi-pro cameras is zero. As for wedding photos, why not ask how many wedding photos are made by friends and family with phones compared to professional photographers? Whether or not there is a pro making photos, the overwhelming majority of photos made at any wedding will be smartphone photos. For most of the 90% of people who don't live in wealthy countries, 100% of wedding photos will be smartphone photos. A high percentage of those will be of good quality—sharp and with good color, if not always perfectly composed— and treasured for years to come. The honeymoon: statistically, what percentage of people pack a bagful of pro or semi-pro cameras and lenses to carry along? Zero. Comes the first baby. Statistically, what percentage of proud papas will tote a bagful of pro or semi-pro cameras and lenses and lighting equipment to the hospital for baby's first pics? Zero.
Give it up, snobs. The smartphone camera (and whatever it will evolve into) already leads the world by far, with all the rest being an insignificant decimal. Few inventions have empowered people like smartphones and their cameras.
Except that the only people who are wanting professional photographs of weddings are people who have a professional camera. Not a smartphone. A vast majority of that 1.2 trillion photos you said arent photos that are used to sale or print at 40x60 prints. Most of those photos are just for memory
Time for the camera manufacturers to take their revenge: to include a free phone in their cameras so that instead of people buying a cellphone with a camera, people will buy a more serious camera with an included cellphone…
I like it, but I don't think a phone in a dedicated camera with a camera form factor will work. Some people won't carry a small, decent camera (think Sony RX100 series) along with their phone. Both will fit in small pockets. I will, but I am not average. Why would they carry a larger camera if it it has a smart phone in it? Besides bulk and weight, there is the awkwardness of using it as a phone or mini, touch screen computer. Ergonomics work for the camera, but not the phone.
I think it might work if camera companies made a better version of a Samsung Galaxy K Zoom. A phone that is a little thicker with a one inch sensor and real zoom lens, instead of camera with a phone. You have the phone, form factor witch appeals to people who won't carry a camera and phone. You also have some of the qualities a decent compact camera. But you will still need somebody to work with the camera companies for the phone part other than those already invested in phones (Apple, Samsung, Google etc.). It won't replace dedicated cameras, but it could bring in sales for camera companies that would allow a reasonable price for the fewer dedicated cameras.
Well for some is physical question, for some is not camera, but if you look at photography in the year of 2000 those arguments will be nearly the same as back in the days when comparing film vs digital. And again when talking processors in computers 20 years back we seeing computers we had back then inside our poclets. In a decade we will be conecting phones capable of taking photos easily compared with output of FF DSLR 5 years back. The most magic is in the algorithms. If we are able to upcale phptos from our cameras by 4 times today without the loss of detail and without artefacts in decade we will be able to upscale 10 times? 20 times. Now who needs a telephoto lens then? Yet photography is done and dusted. The future is in video and simple frame extraction from video sequence. Already today we were able to do 8K 30. You can fight it as much as you want and make arguments why mobile phones are not cameras. Well they are much more then that. You have display, computer, camera, and sound capturing device. You have everything you need. You dont need big heavy soap boxes with big heavy tubes attached to it. Everything cameras could do today, code can achieve tomorrow. Dept of field, subject tracking, telephoto, macro... Everything could be achieved by combination of multiple lenses and sensors put together and processed in one device.
Thanks for your reaction. Your comments just showing how much behind some people are and that is most likely the reason this article is here. We have self driving electric cars, computers in our pockets with artificial intelligence on our finger tips and cslculator was replaced by smartphone just like your alsrm clock, compact camera, diary,..... You can achieve depth of field ( blured backround/ foreground) artificially. Please at least be so kind and visit my gallery before taking your comments any further.
See you in 10 years pal. That's my last answer. You seen my work. If that doesn't say enough, no point to write anything more here. Have a nice day
John your point about a 100-400mm makes no sense.
1 How many photographers shoot with a 100-400mm ?
No one is saying the smartphone will replace every camera in every situation. What we are saying is the dslr market is a small niche and is hurting. So while you might need a 100-400mm .5% of the time. The bulk of the market does not and that is where the growth is.
2. Tomorrow not today
You are arguing against todays technology but 30-40 years ago no serious photographer other than photojournalist would use anything other than medium format. Are you kidding, the studio I worked at shot high end portraits and weddings and we only used Hasselblad's and 4x5. Only amateurs shot 35mm because they couldn't afford real cameras.
John "A calculator has never preplaced a computer. A cellphone has never replaced a computer. A point amd shot has never replaced a real camera and same with a phone. It will never replace a real camera."
What planet are you living on ? Do you actually know anything about the mobile market ? Mobile accounts for 70% of most users access. And yes that includes the calculator. Do you also realize that the estimates are some where around 3 billion cellphone photos are taken EVERY DAY !
DEC, Wang and IBM thought PC's were a joke. Not real computers. Serious companies had IBM mini and mainframes.
Your argument is exactly the same just replace the terminology.
completely agree with you, computational photography will be the new "digital" and actually this whole discussion, reminds me very much of the time when digital started to become good. I wonder if some people who were around when the the analog/digital transition hhappened (and didn't believe digital will beat analog in the foreseeable future),aro now on the wrong side again or did they learn their lesson. probably not 😂
Simon I think their imagination is just way to small. But thanks god we are all different 😉 i love my DSLR but if all that will come in size of a phone, I'll be grateful.
zdenek, I have looked at your gallery and all of the photos are obvious that they have been heavily digitally manipulated. Not to say they are not great images, but that is definitely not to everyone's taste. Some appreciate a more natural look, more a capture of reality than a heavily edited version. You are right that technology can do many things, but rarely does it look natural.
Show me the commercially available program today that can upscale by 4 times with no negative effects. It does not exist. I have used multiple offerings and they are always a compromise.
You are putting too much faith in software and algorithms. Show me a photo taken natively at 400mm from camera, and show me the same photo taken at 100mm but cropped and enhanced, and I guarantee the photo taken at 400mm from camera will look better every time.
Topaz Gigapixel AI is one promising up to 6x ...and Photoshop has upscale function in camera raw and lightroom since last year update 4x( but its not great). Well my images are my images.. You dont need to love my work. All i was trying to say is "check my gallery before you say i dont know anything about photography".. Why is your gallery empty? When it comes to the technology and me thinking to much of it it comes from the past and from the observed technological innovation for last 20 years. Btw we are still using Bayers mask after so many years. Dont you think there could be something new and better on the way?
I like your work a lot actually, my only point is that AI / technology has not gotten so good that you cannot detect it, and I still believe there is no substitute for a real camera that a cell phone and imaging software can fake. I've also uploaded some of my photos if you are interested
Matt I am talking about time after a decade. Look how long is Sony cameras on the market. When they came out with first mirrorless around 10 years back nobody was taling it serious and people were laughing how bad their cameras were. 10 years prior to that film photographers were laughing when digital cameras started making some progress. How many of my friends asked me back in days what DSLR they should get and thst they like nice photos. Back then my answer was usually compact camera. Well compact cameras is already replaced by phones. The way I see it is that tge statement some photographers trying to make here is like medium format camera user telling guy with aps-c that his camera is not proper camera. I am just wandering does ppl actually know how many things you can get to improve your smartphone photos? Moment lenses, nd filters, of camera flash... There is actually whole series on Netflix created on iPhone 11 and samsung s9. It may looks funy today... Will it look funy in a decade? I don't actually think so. Btw canon is launching R3 today... I am so curios what is new again. Your photos are nice. When i look at them I am thinking if people back in the days we're thinking same way about Ansel Adams photos when he got into the zone systems and started to create for his generation heavily posprocesed images 😉😂 I think it is so subjective and is great that they are differences between us. Have a nice day ❤️
About volumes:
In my neck of the woods (Northern California) I encounter 3 groups of photographers. About 95% take images with their smart phones or tablets. These are all age and income groups. There is a small group, about 4% who shoot entry level DSLR. These are in their 30’s and 40’s. Then there is the 1%, where I belong, who shoot with higher end DSLR and mirrorless. And we are all 50’s and older.
About quality:
You all have a good idea of what of each of these photographic tools can produce. But the absolutes best camera is and has always been the one you have. I shoot with a Canon R5. My wife with her iPhone. I shoot to make art and to document my family’s adventures. My wife is focus only on the family. So who prints its landscapes BIG and hangs them on the wall? I do. So who get the best family images? No doubt it is my wife. Because of the accessibility of the phone she can capture far more unique, intimate, personal moments that I will ever be able to do.
So I have to agree with the main subject of this post:
mirrorless is the future of the camera (and there will always be a market for it at the professional level) but the future of photography is the smartphone (and this is actually very good).
Yeah but is that the future or have we already been in that situation for the past ten years with dslrs and progressively more recently with mirror less? +6 billion phones in service, it's been going for awhile.
It is a small distinction to make, but I would argue that out of the 95% you mention, most would not consider them photographers. If I am out and about with my phone and take a snapshot of a quick memory, I would not consider that photography. I feel that in most cases, the cell phone camera user is the disposable camera / polaroid user of 20 years ago.
Of course there are those out there practicing the art of photography with their cellphones, but most are just capturing a quick memory, what they had for lunch, or their friends and family to post on social media
I disagree. Those family moments that Mr. Perez's wife captures are photography. He even said they are better family images due to accessibility. Even if they are snapshots, they are still photography. We call photojournalism photography and much of that are snapshots. Even the talented photographer working in journalism sometimes has to grab a shot, but we don't dismiss those photos, because he or she didn't have time to work on composition, lighting etc.
Great article!
Great read and info of past, present and possible future! Comments reflect photographers and the "Just Snapper". Remember the polaroid, bought by women mostly for whatever! I have lived from the 125 film spy camera through the history of this article. I have lived with a dial phone party line to today the 5G wireless. Advancements are just life like before Columbus there were not even horses in north and south america or even guns it was time travel like Australia and its natives that still try to live the old ways and do a great job of survival where modern men vanish in a day.
A lot of the cell phone is getting something to the WWW and is not really needed to be sharp or perfect compositional just someone wanting to be noticed for something.
Remember the first Sony models A7 and the Mark ii's they had on camera apps like today's cell phones that not even the Reps knew about but us who read the instructions found!!!
Do you think you could drive today without a phone with a paper map and CB for communication if you had trouble and trust the first person to help if just 20 miles from a city?
I welcome the cell phone for I have seen even today a young couple with a "real camera" trying to take a photo in auto mode they got from a flea market, yes on a beach for a sunrise of themselves on a honeymoon, yes I took it and spent an hour or more of great light time to show how to use -yea!!!
First my camera and gear are more safe due to fewer that want and know how to use, the tables have turned some in our favor for camera/gear has to be carried around and not in the back pocket. And someone has to learn to use everything and not just tap a button.
My fancy modern tripod came with a cell phone adapter mount, go figure that for a while!!
One thing I do not like is the video parts of my photocamera, just get a real video camera for it is just another thing added like video on a cell phone, just use that!
Cell phone makers will to the Nth degree make images as good a "Real Camera" and Video as good as the best widescreen movie, that is what sells "fast and post" from anywhere but they need a cell tower somewhere.
I want to thank all the young and old programmer's out there for the software that makes my images great without the Chemicals of the past used in a darkroom or at the 1 hour photo drop at the old drug store.
Lastly without electricity, like so many fires, tornados' and hurricanes place's where would any of it be useful to record a moment of anything.
A camera is the time machine to a moment in the past where even the mind can no longer remember clearly! Did it really happen or were we really that young once. Or Cell Phone what loaf of bread am I supposed to get again!
Amazing comment! Better than a lot of articles I’ve read.
interesting, I thought the contents of this article are commonly accepted, but of course they're not, I remember when digital started to become competitive with 35mm film (and soon after medium format) but still for years to come some would claim, 35mm velvia has 50mp and do on. or the discussion about electronic viewfinders same thing people just don't see it coming.
computational photography will probably soon make smartphone cameras really really good (AI up sampling, AI noise reduction, AI bokeh, and probably stuff I can't even imagine), maybe even starting with the pixel 6...
I think computational photography will be the new "digital", and non computational photography will be the new "analog" because computational photography will make images look so much mor perfect and real, there will be no competition, "dumb" digital cameras with their imperfections will have the same role as analog has now... which major manufacturer will jump the AI bandwagon first?Or will it be Samsung who might try again? Probably some new never heard of company...
but if I think about who is the Leica of our time, I think it might be Dji...
that being said, I'm not a huge fan of smartphones as cameras (though mainly due to the haptics and focal lengths available), although in the last few years I have almost exclusively used my smartphone, just because I had it with me and I mainly took pictures for Instagram. but I have to say, I wasn't talking photography very seriously in those last few years, before I did a lot more, but since now everyone is a photographer and has a camera with her all the time, I kinda lost my interest in "serious" photography...
however now with the ricoh gr iiix the camera of my dreams (almost, wr sealing would've been nice) has been announced, I think I'll give it another shot. and if I wasn't vegan and had more money I would be shooting film a lot more, I just like analog.
also thinking about a camera drone, at least with that, you can still get some shots that not everyone else can get...
Where I disagree with you is that "computational" photography makes, or will make, everything look more "real".
Not even the best digital effects in movies today look "real". They look like CG, they are evident. They have now passed into the point of a hyper "realism" that is that much further disconnected from real, that it is very evidently fake.
The same can be said of the popular IG "photographers" that post their digital art, so digitally manipulated that in my opinion it is no longer photography, but digital art. It is clearly manipulated, clearly fake.
The point so many of you are missing is you are all thinking its about image quality. Everyone that thinks this has bought the manufacturer marketing hype.
The future of the adoption of a photography platform has very little to do with image quality. Everyone here appears to a working pro or an advanced amateur. So your perspective is skewed and no one is thinking of the consumer or market demands.
Question: At what point does the image quality no longer matter and is "Good Enough"? Noise free 24mp, 30mp, 50mp ? If its all about IQ what happens when a smart phone starts to produce the same quality as an entry level dslr ?
See you all make my point for me because you are all ready using gear that is "Good Enough". You have a dslr or mirrorless camera that does what you need. But if it was purely about the best IQ then why are you not shooting a Fuji 100mp medium format camera ? Because the gear you have is "Good Enough".
The smartphone is also "Good Enough" for millions of users, and it will only get better so what happens then ???
You guys are thinking like geeks and NOT the growth of the market of the future. In fact the dslr/mirror segment of the market is hurting and not growing. Any camera manufacturer would love to have the sales of Apple's 2.5++ Billion iphones.
Someone commented about a pro not using an iphone to shoot a wedding. This maybe true but I have seen some crappy wedding photos when high end cameras. So once again fancy cameras do not equal great images. Also have you shot a wedding lately ? Most wedding photographers have to fight the hords of smartphone shooters that are ether getting in the way or standing next to them shooting the same shot.
Anyway you guys can argue bokeh, megapixels resolution or ISO performance but you are simply missing the point. You are using todays technology and form factor but as consumer demand for better phone camera technology grows so will the market.
Do some research on the work Panasonic is doing with Global Shutters and Organic Senors. No one predicted Elon Musk's battery technology, Jeff Bezos Amazon delivery and Steve Jobs introduction of computer you carry in your pocket or wear on your wrist.
So putting down the evolution of the smartphone becoming a more accepted camera platform is short sighted and a suckers bet. I could post 3 images right now and no one here could tell me if they were shot with an iphone or a Sony. The image either works or it doesn't.
Smartphones itself are not the future of photography.
AI on the other side is the future of everything, not just photography.
Without AI we would not get the picture quality we're getting today and as AI advances it will just become better and better.
Cameras need a computer in them if they want to compete.
Thanks Mike Smith - every time another article comes out telling the public that cameras are dead and replaced by smartphones that's my chance to buy your cast-off secondhand kit.
In the last few years I have built from scratch a 35mm film-system with several bodies and a fleet of prime lenses for a shoestring budget. It's the same with digital - even fabulous fast-aperture 85mm's and 35mm's have come my way with cameras at 1/10th their original selling price. And it's those same cameras and lenses that shot the fabulous double page spreads in National Geographic of 2005-2012.
The only problem with this is that to stay in profit, the big name companies are making even more complex cameras and lenses at ticket prices measured in the 1000s of $/$/€. The supply of old film-era lenses and capable second generation digital bodies will eventually dry up --and where will that leave the new photographer getting a foothold into such a wonderful job or hobby? Where is the Pentax K1000 equivalent in the Sony A7 series ? (How many here started with a K100 / Nikon EM / Canon AE1 / Practika or Zenit?) Yes - IS in lenses is good for some - but only for a minority of my pictures, and my F1.4.is only used at that aperture infrequently. Yes - video is fun - but I use it perhaps once a month.
For every top range Olympus OMD that sells with its F1.4 lens they need to consider where tomorrow's high-end buyers will start. So before the industry eats itself - here is a plea to manufacturers that high still images will always be needed - so high IQ still cameras will be needed 5 and 10 years from now; they don't need to be brim-full of the latest electronics, but it the starter models aren't there at prices that young photographers can afford, the market will fade away.
I'm looking forward to the day my smartphone can replace my dedicated camera gear, but that day is a ways off. Computational photography is the new buzzword these days, and a lot of folks are parroting the term as though the tech is restricted to smartphones. Camera vendors can (and should) provide the option to do the same in-camera, and processing can also be applied to RAW data in post, including re-processed over time as the algorithms improve. A larger sensor and optics allow more light (data) to work with, yielding better results from the same algorithms when evaluated over a wide range of shooting conditions. For people who care about maximizing IQ (includes many hobbyists, not just commercial shooters), a dedicated camera will complement their smartphone camera for quite some time. For people taking snapshots targeting social media and mobile consumption, I would argue that the future of photography being shot from the smartphone has already arrived.
Since the first digital camera, every image starts as a RAW. Any image, including those saved as jpg in camera, are processed from RAW data, only that data is flushed away as soon as the jpg is created unless the user set up to also save the RAW as a separate file. This said, I agree that the cameras in phones are mostly over process images made to look good. Do I want to buy a new $1400.00 phone each year to keep up with that technology? Hell no. Do people do it all the time for their few hundred kilobytes images on social media, absolutely, but then some need to shoot 30-50 images of a car or bird in action to "find a keeper" with the top new mirrorless cameras. My phone is going on 4 years now, middle range not purchased for the camera quality and will be replaced when it's dead or too crippled but I have very minimal apps on it. It's a phone, email, a little bit of internet, small amount of music and photos and very few apps. I don't think I'll ever replace my computers and certainly not a camera for a phone.
""First off, Canon has been (And I'm sure others) making cameras that do in camera RAW processing for a long time know"
Yes, of course. This is well understood but is not what people mean when they use the term "computational photography".
The issue is not starkly black and white. I use professional-grade DSLRs and mirrorless cameras for research-grade macro photography, but I also use my iPhone a great deal because it produces great photos and it’s always there. EOS R5 research-grade photo of Scutigera coleoptrata: https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/51432585377/. iPhone research-grade photo of Eupatorium perfoliatum: https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/51447544893/.
It’s a wonderful thing—especially for social justice—that phones have put quality cameras into the hands of such a high percentage of the world’s population.
1. Those 2 images aren't even remotely the same.
2. You picked the worst of your photos to represent the R5. Is there a reason why you didn't pick images like this https://www.flickr.com/photos/primeval/51299386268 ?
You utterly missed the point. The key phrase is research-grade. The latter photo is very pretty, if I do say so myself, but it isn’t a research-grade image. The former two are suitable for enabling a person who encounters these organisms to identify them as to genus and species, or to demonstrate to others their morphology and characteristic features. That was the purpose of these photos, and the three scientific organizations that have published them agree that they are worthy of those purposes.
the real future of 'photography' will be either an implemented pinhole device in some smart-spectacles (s. fakebook's ray-ban push now!) with images reworked auto,atically via ai-cloud apps or - more viable: some (flat) contact lens dirdctly put on your eye-ball - mixed with streaming virtual reality.
future will be robotic, too. maybe peole will replace on of their natural eye with a high-profile robotic eye to wear like the oldfashioned steampunky glass-eyes of war veterans :))
and this future is near: maybe 2030 or even before.
Just wanted to say, I wrote my post before I read yours. :-)