More and more agencies are accepting images taken with mobile phones. Since I am thinking about buying a smartphone anyway, I might as well buy one with a decent camera suitable for stock. Any experiences or recommendations? 

Latest iPhone (the 5S) looks like the business. Details about the camera at: http://www.apple.com/iphone-5s/camera/

But don't buy on technical specs - also consider what apps are available. I still have the 4S and like it very much too. If money is short I would recommend a used 4S. Check that the lens is not scratched.

And talking about phone camera pictures -- have a look at the wonderful work on VSCO grid: http://vsco.co/grid

.

How can you keyword a picture taken with the smartphone? If you download to you computer first then why dont you just fake your DSLR pictures to be bad enough  and skip smartphone part?

Not everyone has a DSLR with them everywhere they go.

I guess if given the choice and with a DSLR in your hand, obviously you'll shoot with the DSLR. But what's the saying, "The best camera is the one you have with you," or something like that...

I believe that it is analogous to the introduction of the original 35mm miniature format in the 1920s - and also its adoption by the world of fashion in the 1960s (which was a youthful reaction against the formality and gloss of the 1950s). iPhone and handheld natural light smaller camera photography in general very much suits the informal sort of look and feel which so clearly chimes in the current economy and the uncertain political and global environment. People are capturing reassuringly informal and off-beat images with small cameras which they would never get walking around with giant zoom like a tourist.

If you look at the history of photographs and how they are used, the sort of pictures which are current always reflect the times.

No Pete.

The 110 and disc were not formats which were ever significantly used in publishing. And Polaroid really only retrospectively for the most part and to be cute.

I can think of no memorable 110 or disc images which are defined by having been taken with those formats. Compare that with 35mm. The introduction of 35mm heralded a different sort of reportage which was also to do with publishing. It changed the way in which people worked. And then think about what happened in the 60s when the world of fashion fell in love with 35mm - and how fashion pictures suddenly looked completely different (much more like reportage). And how that also seemed to perfectly mirror the cultural shift. Photography is at least as much about the culture in which it emerges as it is about the technology.

Today publishing means the internet. That is the main medium for publishing. The majority of images published everyday are iPhone images. Commerce and business is lead by curation and for the most part the curators are using iPhones. What their pictures look like is shaping what is current in how photographs look at the moment. Like it or not this is a huge and significant shift in the history of pictures.

And FWIW, at this point the iPhone really is the only camera phone which is significant at all. So you need not worry about those crappy phones with plastic lenses since they have no traction (Nokia might have produced a 41MB camera but nobody wants a Nokia). And it isn't just the iPhones themselves. It's the apps. A few years ago it was Instagram and Hipstamatic. Today it's VSCO. Obviously these apps really just represent different ways of processing how a picture looks. It's no different from when a new film used to be developed in order to create a particular look. So Instagram was the look of, say, 2010 just as much as 1950s America looked like 1950s Kodachrome.

(Incidentally - the different styles of processing are dismissed by many as being about trying to make crappy pictures look better. But actually that is also more or less why many of the 'traditional' darkroom techniques such as toning were developed in the mid-late 19th century. That was about trying to make up for the fact that the positive-negative process, though much more practical and useful, did not produce images which were as good as the Daguerreotype or as 'artistic' as paintings).

No way. Smartphones are far a away from what a dslr can do.

I agree, I just got a LG smartphone and compared the pictures to DLSR pics. They are full of noise and artefacts and the dynamic range of the sensor is worse than that of my nikon d 50 from back in 2005.

But I can't take a good photo to save my life on my Galaxy Note.  Yeah... I could prop my elbows on something solid etc. but the darn thing is so light it moves every time I press the trigger push the screen.