The 5S camera is killer. f/2.2, apparently a great sensor for the size and 120fps video is more than most pocket cameras offer. Manufacturers of point-of-shoot cameras can pack up and leave if this is a trend.
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/coolpix/s/s6500/
16MP, 12x optical zoom, upto ISO3200, Lens shift VR
The only good thing is f/2.2 which the Lumia 1020 has and is a better camera, 32Gb of built in storage (and SD card slot) for £200 GBP LESS than the 5s.
Apple are rip off merchants. Sorry.
Today the feature of not being a second device outweighs almost any other camera feature.
// I love photography, have top of the line Nikon pro gear, but the iPhone 4S ruined my enjoyment of lugging that gear around. This summer I picked up a Sony RX1 which is an astonishing full frame sensor in an amazingly compact body to solve that, figuring I'd be willing to carry something small, and that, frankly, the cost would compel me. But truth is, with the iPhone 4S, pictures of everyday things are "good enough" that the inconvenience of the second device still has me leaving it at home. Convenience is a compelling feature!
Unless your eyes are tuned to look at iPhone snaps or have poo in them, then no. I'll go as far to say that it's crap and a dishonest attempt at calling it a camera.
I'd rather carry a second device around. Here - a quick holiday snap from my Coolpix P330 with NO processing whatsoever: http://i.imgur.com/mtic70l.jpg
I think its clear the eyes of the judges of the most prestigious photojournalism award are neither "tuned to iPhone photos" nor "have poo in them". Also, I'm not talking about holiday snaps of pine cones. I'm talking about every day life shots or EDLs, Damon's "little slices of our world".
Damon's reaction to the world freak out over photos from an iPhone: http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/through-my-eye-not-...
Yeah, and it's just a camera.
Someone smart once said "the best camera is the one you have with you", which adds immensely to the value of having a good camera on something you carry all day long.
However, comparing a $600 iPhone to a $70 point-and-shoot is not really relevant.
It's the same reason why, if there was a $20 Facebook device, a $20 Twitter device, a $20 SMS device, etc., they wouldn't sell very well since the phones people already carry can do those things without needing to purchase and tote around multiple other devices.
sometimes you are downvoted. it happens.
but more often than not someone upvotes you again, and then it just look whiny, espescially if you are second comment on the page (as you are now).
Many of the Micro 4/3s and higher end P&S like Sony RX100 are relatively pricey and could find the iPhone snapping at their heels. The difference in quality could easily be acceptable given the benefits of an internet connected device e.g. Facebook, Instagram, Flickr.
My friend brought a cheap point-and-shoot camera to last New Years Party. He had pictures from a family get-together with kids throwing leaves up in the air, taking multiple snapshots during. With the fast shutter mode, you could see individual leaves and zoom in on them. I'm certain the iPhone 5 nor any other camera phone cannot come even remotely close to that.
Then there's the low light pictures I tested during the party. None of the cameraphones could get a decent shot, but the point-and-shoot was amazing.
Sure, if you take pictures in ideal conditions with a cameraphone, it starts to get hard to tell, but the reality is most pictures are taken with low lighting, or too much motion, and I've yet to see a single cameraphone be even minimally useable in these conditions.
It's not going to replace good cameras used by enthusiasts who know their aperture from their ISO, but it has the potential to make huge waves in the snapshot category. I'd love to see that tech make its way to, say, the successor to the Canon S110 or the next Ricoh GRD.
It will make auto white balance so much better at its job.