Just a side-note: If it was an SLR, it uses 35mm film, so film is available for it. "All" SLRs have "always" used 35mm film (until they became digital).

So, what you are saying is that you have no interest in photography. You never take pictures for the sake of taking pictures, you only take pictures of stuff you need to identify and similar. Your camera phone is only a basic visual note-taker. You have no kids or others you want to take pictures of.

OK, then I agree with you. If you have no need to take pictures, you (obviously) have no need for a camera. I wonder what happened to "I was very much into photography" then.

Yes, the S5 takes incredible pictures for a cell phone, which is the same as to say that a child's to spade does an incredible amount of work for a dump truck. Seriously, you do not need to compare the S5 with a DSLR for it to be bad. The majority of brand-name point and shoots (as for example the Canon S100 series) are going to blow your S5 out of the water, and they are not hefty or unwieldy.

If you were, you were not into quality images. If you were, you'd hate your S5 in almost every single way except its portability. Image quality is mediocre at best, features are non-existing (RAW please?), the chip is so tiny it is almost impossible to take pictures with narrow depth of field (pictures of people in general requires narrow depth of field) and to get them you'd have to go close, exposing the extreme wide-angle of your phone camera and the associated distortions.

I use my Canon S100 for ultra-portability, I use my Panasonic-GX7 for portability (both fits in a pocket) and the ability to use interchangeable lenses. For video and good portability I carry the Panasonic GH4, but when quality is important I bring out the Canon DSLR every time.

and the camera manufacturers agree, so they don't put those features in. Result: 75% drop in P&S sales, 70% drop in DSLR sales, 20% drop in mirror less sales. Hopefully Canon and Nikon will wake up and smell the shit they are shoveling.

The consumer wants to. He doesn't care for sitting in front of his computer stitching and editing video (that's boring work and seriously, he barely understands the magic of his computer). He never will. It must come out of the camera.

He's right though. I have the Panasonic GH4 in addition to my Canon gear. The GH4 will shoot a time-lapse in camera and store it as a movie. In camera. Can you do that with any Canon? No. My Panasonic will shoot 96 fps and when I get it off the memory card it is already slow-mo. Can Canon do that? No, I have to go import the video into some sort of editor on my PC to make it slo-mo. In camera stitching of panorama - check.

His point is seriously valid. Camera manufacturers need to get their shit together and create better enthusiast cameras. Compact sales are down 75%. DSLR sales are down 70%. Mirrorless system cameras sales are down 20%. None of this is related to smart phones as such. People expect more and camera manufacturers are not delivering. It's been possible to put an intervalometer (it's only software) into any Canon or a Nikon for a long time, just ask the guys at Magic Lantern, but Canon and Nikon are refusing to do so. They are morons.

A good wedding photographer works about 60 hours per wedding he shoots. A few of those are work that ends up not being paid (selling to prospective clients - they typically interview about 3-4, and only one dude can get the job), but he still has to get the income. 60 hours for $3K is nothing. Remember, he is self-employed, and need to cover health-care, retirement, insurance etc in addition to gear.

This is why all the "good" photographers try to write books etc, they make far more money out of that. You will find very, very, very few rich photogs. Good or excellent.

Seriously? You think a photographers work, for example at a wedding, is done in a day? Clueless nonsense. You pay for not only about a week of work, you also pay for the fact that, for example a wedding photographer, can not work taking pictures every day. There is generally only a couple of days of the week where weddings are held (unless you live in Vegas).

A wedding photog working alone will typically spend between 50 and 60 hours on "a wedding". A bit of that, about 6-8 hours, is time that he tries to sell to other clients, but fails, so he can not bill them. In the US, a photog can expect to make about $2-3K for a wedding. Given the number of hours required, he can expect to book about two weddings a month if he is working with no assistant (with an assistant the maths gets worse). Now, for a quick calculation. He'll pull in about $60K a year. Sounds not too bad, problem is, that's for his business, not for take-home pay. Out of that $60K he has do do health insurance, disability, retirement savings etc. This would typically amount to about $35K a year, leaving the photog with a take-home pay of about $35K.

This is why you never see any rich photogs out there. The ones who make money do so by writing books, giving lectures etc, and they are not actual photogs as such since they do not make a significant amount of their income taking pictures. There are only so many open positions for a Scott Kelby out there.

There is no way they can do that and survive as photogs. They'd be bankrupt in a month.

It always will be. The size of the photosite (and sensor) determines how many photons hits "each pixel". This is physics and can't change. Every single improvement on the phone side, will be mirrored by the SLR guys, which means they will always have an advantage of several orders of magnitude. A camera phone can get "good enough" but they will always be orders of magnitude worse than SLRs.

Example: There are a number of phones out there with more than 12 Mpix sensors. The Sony A7s has a 12 Mpix sensor. There is not a single smart phone in the world that can compete in the same league as the Sony. Even with shitty optics.

Nonsense. The sensor in your SLR blows the sensor of your phone out of the water. It's plain physics, and it will never change. Larger photosites collect more photons. You simply can not, in any possible way, create the same quality of images with a phone chip as you can with an SLR chip. Now, the optics are important too.

If you are saying that your S5 takes pictures of comparable quality to a DSLR (or a mirrorless camera) with a similar pixel count you are astonishingly clueless. The Sony A7s has 12 Mpix sensor. It images blows any picture taken by the S5 out of the water. The phone can not play in the same league, not in the same game, in reality, not in the same universe, and the Sony has fewer pixels than the phone.

A personal computer can be used to do work on. That means it needs to have available the apps I need. I do photography (as most people), video, office docs and programming, mostly.

My PC needs a good photo management package, can't get one for a Chromebook. Equivalent of Lightroom or onOne. It needs a quality editing package as well, Photoshop is the only real competitor, it must have a decent office package (partly check) and video editing software (none exists).

Yeah, right. Give me Darkroom, Photoshop, Premiere Pro on that "fresh new computer experience". perhaps you meant "frustrating new computer..."

Show me a PC customer who wants anything but Windows or OSX on their desktop/laptop.