I'm pretty leery of faking depth of field since you can't blur in pixels that aren't there. What this really shows me is that sensor size is almost irrelevant when it comes to image quality now. Certainly a 1" sensor should be enough to satisfy most needs. It's all down to lenses and ergonomics now.
Even my six year old 5DMII shoots far better than my iPhone 6. Lenses, yes, but sensors too. With my 5DMII I've been able to pull the shop name off of a reflection of a guy's eye that I was doing a normal portrait for. There is far less photo AI magic going on in DSLRs to fake high quality results. Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy with the 6 for casual shots, but I still think it's much easier to get high quality from larger sensors.
If you're shooting with post-processing in mind, then that's another thing entirely.
> I've been able to pull the shop name off of a reflection of a guy's eye
Most needs, not occasional attempts to prove a point ;-)
We're at a point now where the latest M43 cameras can match the previous generation APS-C sensors (which exceed the 5dMk II, for example, in dynamic range and color depth, if not low light performance) -- if you're willing to lose a stop, that gets you below a 1" sensor.
I think Nikon's decision to make the 1-series was actually very good strategically (skating to where the puck is heading). I just think they've totally wasted their first mover advantage by failing to provide good bodies or lenses for enthusiasts. (I don't know why Nikon uses Aptina sensors instead of Sony -- it may be for the fast readout, since the first gen 1-series cameras could shoot full resolution at 60fps.)
