I think you left out portability when referencing Cell Phones. At my daughter's recent wedding there were 150 guests and three cameras. Those belonged to the wedding photographer and his two assistants. The guests that were invited by my daughter and son in law are all college educated and based on my observation have no interest in DSLR cameras. They had their cell phones and used them for taking pictures. All was well in their world. My guests only concern was we would not run out of Single Malt or Wine. I used my cell phone to take pictures. Did I want to be bothered with my camera? No.

Look in your mirror, the snob is looking back at you.

You do nothing but belittle many posters who don't agree with your way of thinking.

Don't accuse me of 'photography snobbery'.

I've used a Brownie, a Kodak Instamatic, a Leica Range Finder, a Pentax SLR, a Minolta 101, a Nikon 6006, a Sigma SLR, a Sony Cybershot, and I currently use a Canon Rebel T5.

None of them were state of he art when I obtained them.

But I used them until they stopped working then I upgraded to the next camera that I could afford.

Until a few years ago, most Canon "Kit" lenses were their EF-S line of lenses, which just happen to be their lowest quality line of lenses. Many or most EF-S lenses will not work with a teleconverter, because of their physical design. Both of my "Kit" lenses fall into that category.

Yes you CAN now get EF lenses as part of consumer grade camera bundles. They are marketed as kits.

But you need to educate yourself about exactly what those lenses are. Many times they're the older versions of an upgraded lens.

I don't know about you, but if I'm buying a new lens, I want the best quality lens that I can afford. Good quality glass can make a world of difference in your work.

But was it TTL? You may be just another of those auto dependent wimps!
It probably even had open aperture metering and auto stop down too!
(Happy Thanksgiving, and don't let the turkeys get you!)

On page 5 of this thread the concept of 'photographic snobbery' was introduced. I consider the term kit lens to fall in the same category, it is derogatory and frequently misplaced.

My first 'serious' cameras came with kit lenses. The first was a 58mm f/2.0 lens, and it is still a nice and useful piece of glass. My next camera came with a 50mm f/1.8 lens. Both are good lenses and don't meet your 'dismissive' kit lens descriptions.

Technology changes. Today's lenses are more frequently zooms than primes, which makes smaller minimum apertures more of a standard thing. It changes the optical characteristics, but optical quality can still be very high.

A 'kit' lens is merely something that is bundled with a camera body and may be other things. It has no meaning other than an aggregation of parts. It has no separate existence unless it is only available as part of a bundle. They may exist, but I'm not aware of any. In fact, the inclusion in a kit allows for higher quality as a result of volume economics.

If you look at some of the Canon 'kit' offerings, they include some lenses such as the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS II USM which is by far from a poor quality lens or one that deserves a derogatory designation.

The term 'kit lens' is absolutely derogatory and part of 'photographic snobbery'. You , Sir, are part of 'photographic snobbery'.