iPhone 6 Rumored to Include 10+-Megapixel Camera with f/1.8 Aperture and Improved Filter

Don't care much about the Mpx count, but a wider aperture is good. Better low-light photography, less noise and more bokeh.

If true, my 3GS is history. In fact even if it's not true, my 3GS is history

The f/1.8 would be awesome, megapixels don't mean much but image size and how much light that hits the sensor.

4K video, stereo audio and true 1080p60 or 120, please. And OIS.

----------

True. Manual aperture would be cool.

The DoF will be deep even with a f/1.8 lens, assuming the same miniscule 1/3" sensor as in the 5s.

Stop getting me excited about the iPhone 6 in February :(

...it would give pretty narrow depth of field though so focus will need to be very accurate.

True. Manual aperture would be cool.

Great! Now please continue to offer a 4 inch model.

Yes, f/1.8 won't get to those high-end compacts in terms of out of focus blur / bokeh because the sensor is still tiny.

I think it could be somewhat visible in macro shots though. Still, f/1.8 vs f/2.2 is not a huge difference when it comes to bokeh. Probably often imperceptible.

As for noise, the f-stop difference is 2/3 f-stops, so the iPhone 6 output (ignoring any other improvements to optics) should noise-wise perform at e.g. ISO ~1300 as how the iPhone 5s does at ISO 800. Or need only ~1/40 secs for the same exposure as the iPhone 5s would need 1/23 secs for, given identical exposure settings otherwise. Assuming I'm doing this math right. :D

All in all, incremental but welcome changes. :) Probably not all too visible, but sure, slightly lower risk of perhaps especially shaky shots in poor light and probably less noise visible especially in dark environments (I think this should be noticeable, it's almost a full f-stop after all).

Edit: 2/3 f-stop difference, not 1/3... Fixed the math too

Megapixels don't matter, at this point in a cell phone sensor more megapixels = more noise and worse pixels. People comparing megapixels in cell phones to megapixels in Nikon and Canon dSLRs are comparing matchbox cars to real cars. For most journalists and consumers it's just a big number they don't understand but they want it to be bigger because why not?

Larger pixels are better pixels. Pixels are like buckets, the more they can hold (what they're holding is electrons generated by photons) the better -- more dynamic range. The sensor in a dSLR is huge, if those pixels are buckets, cell phone pixels are like thimbles. Wanting more megapixels is wanting a smaller thimble. But it's worse than that, reading out a pixel creates a certain amount of noise, no matter how big or small the pixel is. If it's a small pixel that holds less, that means a very low signal to noise ratio, and overall more noise in the image the more of those pixels you have.

I'm a scientist who designs cameras for other scientists, and the main thing they ask for is bigger pixels. And more of them, so basically bigger cameras all the way around. (I can show you a great 111 Mpix sensor, but it's the size of a bathroom tile.) A cell phone is pretty much the opposite of all of that, consumers demand crappier cameras because they've been misled by journalists who have been misled by marketing types who won't listen to the engineers anymore. I used to go to an imaging conference (that's happening this week actually) where there were entire days of talks about cell phone sensors that boiled down to "how bad can the image get before the consumer will notice" and "what kind of processing can we do to the images so the consumers won't notice how crappy the image is getting as we add more megapixels?" But that conference got too depressing (and too irrelevant to building good cameras) so I don't go anymore.

How the hell is a stylus or an SD card reader a gimmick?

Because Apple doesn't have them?