I'm posting this, inspired by a couple of recent posts here on SC from folks who've bought pocketable, big-sensor cameras. There are many people who feel that the answer to a problem is to throw more money at it. Over the last couple of years, we've seen a new class of camera emerge, the pocketable, large-sensor consumer compact. The allure is that, for $500 to $3000, you can acquire a camera that can produce far better image quality than your pal's cell phone or your aunt's Canon Powershot. The issue is, to get the most from your new expensive toy, you might actually need to learn a few things about photography, especially depth of field. So, of course, for "happy snappers" who don't want to learn this stuff, comes the plaintive question, "I thought I bought the best camera, why can't it do everything for me?"... because, in that person's thought process, fully (mind-reading) automated = "best". This wasn't as much of a problem back in the days of 1/2.5" sensor cameras, where DoF was far larger, and there was a fairly finite line between what was a P&S and what was a "professional" camera. I guess the question then is, are cameras like the Sony RX100, Ricoh GR, Sony RX1, et al. actually fooling some folks with their consumer-friendly designs, by not consistently delivering the best results without more than casual input from the shooter?