On full frame, f16-22 isn't a classic way though, f8-11 would be a more typical range, depending on the focal length.
It probably does, but I wonder if there will be a practical difference between 150Mp and say 80Mp. I suspect it'll win so little at a very high cost. For example, the pixel area will be >4x smaller than on a 30Mp sensor and such a sensor will have issues with well capacity and dynamic range.
Back in the film days, we used to use F16-22. Its only since digital came along that we opened up to the F8-11 range.
With my EF 16-35 f4L, say at 16mm, f8 is sharp, f11 is acceptable in most cases (although I prefer f9 or f10 when possible), f16+ clearly shows loss of sharpness compared to the same scene shot at f11.
a phone sensor isn't that easy to scale up (or should I say, enlarge with the same pixel density). I suspect electronics will be getting more and more tricky to do, also the production cost will grow exponentially. But most important thing is, even in case we enlarge them, the phone sensors are only 10 or 12 bit ones. Tiny photosites just don't have enough well capacity. That limits the dynamic range and overall IQ.
And none of that was my point. My point was we can already see what shutter speeds we need, what apertures work, what even much greater pixel densities actually look like, that even moulded plastic lenses are plenty good enough to resolve much higher pixel densities than 150 mp on a FF sensor etc etc. We have that information in the palm of our hands (literally), we don't need people telling us it can't be done when it can, it is, and the IQ boundaries are very much further away than even the latest rumor.
