Looking at what is being used today is not a good measure as there were boat loads of these budget DSLR's sold over the last 10 years. Going forward the important figure is what is selling. Looking at figures from CIPA, the MILC market share continues to climb at the expense of the DSLR market.
As an investigator, I see almost 100% of investigative professionals today using their cell phones to collect evidence ... unless it is video
sub rosa of a target under surveillance.
I am considered a "dinosaur" because I still bring a camera and a couple of lenses. In fact, one claimant I was dealing with, as I was photographing the damage to his vehicle, asked me, "Do those cameras really take photos better than a cell phone?"
Public ignorance is amazing.
However, that said, in good light (and with standard subjects, e.g., a scene, a vehicle) cell phones do take perfectly-acceptable images.
In dark light, or of far-away subjects, cell phones are all but useless.
In fact, just to make a point to a collegue, I brought my Nikon D810 and my Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge to a recent case I had involving a seedy dive bar. It was very dark inside. I took the photos with my D810, on a tripod, ISO 640, but a very low shutter speed, to capture the natural ambience of the bar (with no flash). The images were nice. By comparison, the results, even on Samsung's best came out abysmal. (See photos below).
Yet there are investigators who will still submit cell phone scene photos to a client ... muddied due to dark conditions ... simply because
they don't know DSLRs really are superior.
90% of the public does not want to buy a color-calibrated monitor and expensive photography software (nor expensive camera gear).
They just want to "snap and post" ... either on the internet or on a photo sheet to present to a client.
So, even though a client may not appreciate (how or why) well-taken photos are the way they are, at least I know why.
