What drives me nuts is the constant same posting in photography forums of clueless people who want a camera.
To demonstrate, I will give the exact same posting, but for a car:
"I want a formula one ready car, but it should not use require any gas at all, or only like one liter per thousand kilometers or something like that. It also should be able to transport all my furniture in one go in case I want to ever move. Occasionally I want to be able to drive a schoolclass into vacation, and sometimes I would like to use it as an earth mover. Also, if I ever end up near a shootout with criminals, I would want it too be bulletproof. The stereo in it should also be really good. Oh, and it should fit into my pocket and my budget is $20."
Nobody would ever post something like that. Everybody knows such a thing isnt possible. You can get every single of these things, but it will be a different car, and some of them will be very expensive.
But for cameras, somehow people think otherwise.
So no, there will never be the mini camera that fits in your pocket, has the most amazing image quality, offers all the focal lengths and macro as well, can basically see in the dark, can shoot sports, doesnt need changing lenses and costs next to nothing. Not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow, not in a thousand years.
Even if you're dead set on believing that. It doesnt help if you do.
Photography is limited by physics, just like cars or any other hardware. Efficiency cannot be raised above 100%. Hard physical limits like diffraction and the shot noise of light itself cannot be avoided.
And sure, some of the limits of photography are engineering problems. Maybe we'll find new types of glas that can bent light more efficiently, that would greatly help. Maybe we can make production of lenses and sensors cheaper, especially for larger lenses and larger sensors, because thats when prices start to ramp up very quickly. There are always improvements in these areas, but they are much smaller than some people apparently believe.
Also, yes, computational post processing can do all kinds of things. But it cannot restore information that was never recorded in the first place. Which is why smartphone images wont ever look as good as images from large cameras.
And yes, smartphone images can look sharp. That part is trivial. Because you can computationally make a photograph look sharp, its not that hard actually. And yes, they can look contrasty. Raising contrast is quite frankly a very simple thing to do in post production. And sure you can post process and work on an image for hours until it looks as good as a photograph from a much better camera. However this quickly ends up being a painting, not a photograph.
Thus yes, every camera and lens is a compromise. Just like with cars. And just like cars, theres specialized hardware for everything.
So for example you want the best possible image quality ? Prime lenses or at least only short range zooms, large sensors and, for the time being, very quickly very high prices for every little bit of additional increase on top. Economists call this "diminishing returns". Its a general rule of all products.
You want a very wide range of focal lengths ? Small sensors, large lenses, poor image quality, and by the way not that much in respect to wide angle.
You want macro ? Specialized macro lenses with poor autofocus in the macro range of magnification, and with not that much maximum aperture, or compact cameras with really small sensors - for which macro comes kind of for free, basically, but it wont have good image quality.
You want to shoot sports ? You need current lenses and current cameras, for best autofocus performance, and you need large lenses and sensors, for handling low light, high shutter speeds, and long focal lenghts. Professionals spent tens of thousands of dollars or euros on hardware like this, so if you're a hobbyist, you'll have to find a compromise.
And so on, you should have gotten the general idea by now.