My point is that the automatic features of my D300 aren't as good as those on the current iPhone. The phone just does a lot better with autofocus, exposure, IP, etc. It has things like image stabilization that my camera or lenses don't have. That's just the march of progress. My point probably doesn't apply to current Nikon gear - I actually have no idea - but the iPhone is undoubtably better at these things than the camera I have now, which came out the same year as the original iPhone.
So, to get a better photo from my camera, I have to be the guy who sets up his tripod in the middle of the trail, manually focuses, manually sets exposure, brackets his photos, takes a moment to ponder depth of field, etc. I'm not that guy. I don't like lugging tripods and extra lenses around and don't really like lugging the camera itself around. Just not into it that much. So I depend on the automatic features of my gear. That said, I have used pro or semi-pro gear in the past simply because it's water and dust sealed and can take getting tossed around a bit, which is necessary for anything in my life.
And since I mostly take landscapes, I don't really even change lenses. My 20mm is practically permanently fixed to the camera (and the truth is that since it's a DX, the iPhone actually has a wider lens plus it takes pretty awesome panos.)
I grew up in a world of Instamatics and flash cubes. Back then, you'd have to work pretty hard to get a worse photo from an SLR. Today the delta between consumer and pro is minimal and ever narrowing. Can a pro or a skilled hobbyist get more from a DSLR? Likely. But for me to get more, with my limited interest in taking a photo vs having a photo, I'd have to toss my D300 and go spend three grand or so on a new FX 36MP body with modern IP. Question is whether that $3000 is well spent. How much better of a photo will I get, and how long will it be before the next generation iPhone comes out that matches it? And in the meantime, I'm still lugging around that camera.