Not sure why people keep on doing this. It is common knowledge that at web resolutions, any modern camera will produce acceptable pictures under good illumination.

Yet that comparison sucked so much it hurt my eyes. Why? Its conclusion:

An iPhone 5 can take photos that stacks up well against a $4000 DSLR

based off one stupid photo under bright sunlight. So why would you want to pay $4000 for a DSLR then? Considering purely image quality here's why:

1. The DSLR has a much bigger dynamic range, meaning it can deal with much broader ranges of lighting conditions
2. The DSLR has a larger colour depth, meaning the photos will contain much more colour information
3. The DSLR has much less noise, which is clearly visible in this image even under ideal lighting conditions where the iPhone 5 shows lots of noise in the sky and buildings, and the DSLR none
4. The DSLR allows you to use creative depth of field - the iPhone cannot do that. You are stuck with infinite depth of field always.
5. The DSLR does not suffer from strange image artifacts such as the purple tint in the foreground shadow
6. The DSLR has much more detail information in the images, I can read the sign in the DSLR picture but not in the iPhone 5 - even though the author's focus sucked.

These posts are just dumb when written like this. If he wanted to make a point that for web use an iPhone 5 can take decent pictures under good lighting conditions then I'd have no issue with that. But to take one photo and throw it out of context and stating than an iPhone 5 can take pictures of similar quality than a DSLR... Eish.

I will make a public apology if he can take photos like these with the iPhone 5:

Photos

or

More Photos

all taken with a DSLR.