The iPhone already performs poorly at 48mp or whatever it's at right now, compared to pro cameras.
Boosting the megapixel count to 100 or 200mp will only make it worse.
Because it's not really a 48mp sensor. It's a 12MP sensor with the marketing slop of 4x Quad mode so they can label it 48MP.
Marketing departments are trying to sell you on the wrong thing - resolution isn't why these sensors are good, it's the better image processing.
www.gsmarena.com
Conclusion:
So, really these 48MP Quad Bayer sensors can’t offer much more detail than a 12MP sensor. Sensor and phone makers alike will tell you that smarter demosaicing algorithms can capture more detail, but our experience is that the gain is small – if there’s a gain to be had at all.
One way you can justify a $1,000 phone is by saying, yeah well it has a higher number on its sensor as compared to this $1,500 camera. Just like they manipulated megahertz for years, and put your internet speed in megaBITS to sound much faster than it really is (no one wants to pay $80 a month for 12 MB / second speeds but 100Mb? Sure!).
Higher MP has a few edge cases where it can be advantageous (digitally zooming into a portion of a picture), but higher MP = better pictures is delusional. The $60,000 ARRI Alexa 35 is the industry standard cinema camera and shoots at 14.5MP. And yes, there are tradeoffs for those of us who care about low light or night photography, where the lowest MP is the best, as it allows for more light collection per pixel (MP only gives you more resolution and a 3MP camera has plenty of resolution for a tiny phone screen).
As a photographer, I care nothing about variable aperture on a small sensor lens. I can't even understand an application where this would be useful, outside of macro photography and poor pictures of waterfalls (your aperture would need to be much smaller than what they will likely implement and the effect can be much better achieved with neutral density filters (sunglasses for cameras)).
If they wanted to innovate cameras, they could improve the video stability, like what GoPro does. You can hold your gopro and twist it back and forth like you are turning a doorknob, and the image remains perfectly level and stable. My $400 GoPro has better image stabilization than my $6,500 Nikon.
