Part of why big apertures let you easily get the "it's a nice picture" comment is that it essentially removes the background from the image.

One of the hardest things in photography is successfully incorporating the background in the composition. And if you fail, the results are devastating: the background will not only look bad, but also distract from the one thing that might look nice, i.e. the subject.

A big aperture lets you sidestep that difficulty, making it easier to take "good pictures".

Those are scare quotes because successfully incorporating the background might have yielded an even better image. Remember that in the cameras infancy and quite some time after, DoF blur was considered a technical flaw.

Agree. When I first got my first DSLR and prime, all I did was shoot wide open on aperture priority.

When I look back at my photos, I cringe.

These days I generally prefer more depth of field as opposed to less. Unless I have to, I prefer to shoot stopped down a little, at around f2.8 or f4. I also use flash (preferably off camera) when I can.

Probably an unpopular preference, but I also prefer to use smaller sensors, like 1" and 4/3. I can shoot wide open but get more DOF, and my cameras+lens combinations are much more portable.

I think its situational.

When I shot portraits I like to shoot more open and blur the background. (I typically used about 100mm).

I have a series of artists in their work spaces. When I shoot those I don't blur the background and shoot wide to get as much of the space.

Right. Straight-up headshot type portraits are special in the sense that you don't really want a background there. But you don't need short DoF to remove the background -- you can also shoot against a flat surface.

Totally agree that everyone notices the difference. I sync all of my α6600 photos to my iCloud library, and just scrolling through my photos to look for something to show a friend, they always comment, "You took these on your phone!?"

Even at small sizes, the difference in dynamic range is insane, which makes a huge difference when photographing people indoors in particular. And of course when you look at the photo full size, the terrible watercolor effects on cell phone photos can't be ignored.

By the way, you should get the Sigma 56mm f1.4 for your Sony; that's the lens of mine that most makes people's jaws drop.

The ability to use good prime lenses was also my excuse to buy a new mirrorless, and occasionally to put on a zoom for distant wildlife.

My old DSLR was just to bulky so I left it home more often than not, the mirrorless is just that little more compact and light (especially with a pancake lens, it almost becomes a compact).

And good prima doesn't have to be new and expensive btw. You can buy adapters to fit almost any old lens to any modern camera (especially with mirrorless). Only thing you will be missing is the autofocus and auto aperture control. But for me this adds to the experience, since you must really be engaged with taking the picture (eg, thinking about exposure, zooming with your feet, predicting when a moving object will be in focus), instead of having the camera do it's best (or worst) for you and fixing it in post with software.

I have settled on a Fuji as their controls connect more to that feeling of manual photography, making the experience more fun for me. For everything else, my phone camera with cracked lens is good enough.

I would think that wide-open is likely not the sharpest F-stop around, I guess unless you want to maximize that depth-of-field effect that phone cameras can only fake.

I usually shoot at F2.8-F4.0 —- the lens is F1.8

Shooting at 1.8, too much of the picture is out of focus in my experience.

I’m just a hobbyist. Never actually compared sharpness at stops.

If you use a smaller sensor camera, like a 1" or 4/3, wide open can appear sharper because of the increased depth of field, and give you a greater margin of error.

generally modern lenses peak sharpness slightly stopped down. and then they are sharp - and yeah, you can't fake sharpness either (and even if not printing, the camera nearly always produces good enough output for a 4k wallpaper - a phone? maybe.)

I had a X100F and sold it b/c I just never managed to carry it with me.

I now have an iPhone 11 Pro but unless I uses portrait mode the photos just don't come close. And when I do use portrait mode it feels like augmented reality, not real life.

This is what I'm after: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkEq2u_E1VU

So I'm considering an X100V but I am not sure if I can develop the diligence to carry the thing all the time. Especially with family, which is of course when I want it most.

The Ricoh GRiii might be a better fit if carrying it around with you is the biggest challenge. Same sensor size as the X100 range, 28mm f/2.8 lens that's incredibly sharp and small and light enough to fit in a shirt pocket.

The Ricoh portables are fantastic, but they're SO wide. Know of anything comparably portable, but with a longer lens? Even the 35mm lens of the X100 is better.

Afraid not at that size with a big sensor. Maybe something from the Sony RX/Canon Poweshot lines might fit the bill?

To be fair I have a DSLR that quite clearly takes much, much better photos than my iPhone Xs Max takes (despite what Apple's marketing would have you believe), but in reality I just don't bother with the DSLR anymore, because whilst the iPhone clearly isn't as good, it's still easily good enough, and it's a hell of a lot more portable.

I imagine many others feel the same way.

It is