There are countless "pocket cinema" cameras on the market, but its near impossible to beat the camera you have with you at all times. Here's a thought exercise: decouple your mind from the notion that what is in your pocket is a sophisticated phone that has other features. Replace the thought with "I have a futuristic camera that can order lunch". See how easy that was? The engineers who design smartphones (now i'm hesitating to even use the word phone here) spend a great deal of time improving the camera and display, whereas the telecom technology in your devices has stayed relatively the same.

There's something inherently gimmicky about a feature length film shot entirely on a phone. The act of shooting on consumer technology should be a means to speed up process. Faster setups, smaller rigs, time is money etc. If the plan is to shoot a long form narrative project one must consider battery life, lens options, and audio input limitations. Despite those limitations, maybe you should still shoot your movie on a "phone". Here's why.

It looks nice.

There's a unique quality to the image itself. It's sharp where it needs to be, and in the right lighting environment it really does look velvety. You can achieve decent background separation just by moving a bit closer to the subject. The minimum focusing distance makes it possible to get incredibly tight shots, and much more quickly than with a conventional video/film set up.

Low light performance? Nope! Your image is going to get mega grainy in low light. The sensor is tiny. The noise almost looks like film grain, especially so in B&W. Luckily you've spent $0 renting a camera rig, so you can splurge on lighting. You will need it.

It's flexible.

Getting macro shots and b-roll in tight spaces (inside the refrigerator, overhead, car scenes) is a breeze. The camera is so small you can really get it anywhere it needs to be. Most of the better capture apps like Filmic and ProMovie have built in stabilization, so a grip/rig isn't necessary. Or you can go crazy on accessories! Gimbals, filters, anamorphic adapters will all add to your production value, while costing much (muuuuch) less than their professional counterparts. 

Workflow, bro.

I would venture to say that even the worst smartphone interface is still superior to the best production camera firmware. You can begin auditioning clips before you ever sit down behind an editing station, quickly flagging the best clips to import. When I work on a 5k iMac, the machine regularly slows down when scrubbing through 4k footage. Not so on my smartphone.

It's good enough.

The resolution exceeds expectations, and the files hold up decently to color correction. Having a fixed lens initially first feels like a limitation, but the ability to toggle between wide and telephoto lenses on the camera covers a decent range of shooting scenarios. Why fight it?

(update: I'm trying to transfer a 35gb clip over airdrop. Maybe not recommended for long interviews)

I recently attended yet another event where the organizers decided it would be appropriate to take every single attendee's phone (CAMERA) at the door and lock them away in a neoprene bag, thus creating a uniquely "human experience". There are some places where seizing such technology makes perfect sense, a middle school classroom for example. Parents argue about access in an emergency scenario, but I never had a phone in middle school, and it most definitely would have negatively impacted my grades. However, I fail to see how a phone is unwelcome at a rock concert. Is it the inadvertent ringtone? A phone's dinky little speakers are no match for a stadium concert PA system. Does the soft glow of a neighboring screen distract you? That's too damn bad, because the stage is literally covered in strobe lights and smoke and projections. No, the real problem is one's tendency to be recorded and embarrassed, and nothing else. Hell, even Prince let us shoot the first two songs. 

The artist will say something like "I can't connect with the audience if they're distracted". If you really wanted people's undivided attention, I fail to see where selling insane amounts of booze fits into the equation. If NASA took your phone before demonstrating some cutting edge technology, it stands to reason that NASA would not also allow you to get wildly inebriated on the tour. Whether or not you agree with the action of documenting, the aesthetic of cheap concert video or drunk photography as a medium, filming the show is how some people choose to engage. Maybe that person will re-watch this footage later, maybe they wont. Perhaps its an easier token to hang onto than a ticket stub (tickets, which are quickly being replaced by.... YOUR PHONE). Call me crazy (I won't answer. My phone is locked in a bag), but I'd rather have a concert photo from my unique perspective than an overtly gouge-priced t-shirt.

If the "human experience" is valued so much higher than convenience, then why are we hosting concerts in stadiums? Why not play the gig in the middle of a field, or at the bottom of a canyon? The difference is the grand canyon can't post an angry video of you (also drunk) yelling at your own fans. 

The brutal irony was that the performance, whether it was documented to death or not, proved to be wickedly underwhelming. Where I come from we call that phoning it in.