RAW on Smartphones: Why Sensors Still Matter
RAW support arrives in phones like the OnePlus 2, reigniting debates with classic cameras: sensors and optics still determine image quality.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
RAW hits mobile phones, but physics puts on the brakes
When a software update turns a phone into a camera capable of recording RAW files, the temptation to retire your DSLR appears immediately. The OnePlus 2 introduced this support among other new antiestéticatures, and the response across more than a hundred messages reads like a physics textbook rather than a commercial brochure. The majority verdict: uncompressed files improve editing latitude but do not reinvent what enters through the lens. No one disputes that photos can be retouched better. What is debated is whether that suffices to match a larger system.
Technically, the change is real. Saving in RAW means dumping the raw information captured by the sensor into memory, without the compression inherent in factory JPEGs . The advantage becomes evident during editing: you recover shadow and highlight details that compressed files have already discarded. The cost is also clear. Some estimate the resulting file size at ten times larger, while others claim it can reach forty times larger per photo. For video, the overhead becomes simply prohibitive.
Why sensors and optics decide the photo
This is where enthusiasm hits a wall. The argument running throughout the discussion remains constant: size matters. A pea-sized lens and a tiny sensor cannot match the quality of a system with greater light-gathering surface. For technical users, sensor and lens are the only two factors determining image quality; everything else is decoration.
The most repeated comparison mixes high-end and pocket devices: a Canon 5D Mark II with four lenses versus the camera of a carrier-subsidized phone. Mobile advocates note that an acquaintance with that expensive gear had abandoned photography and was astonished by smartphone results in comparisons. Against this stands physics: a handheld shot with a 50mm lens on the 5D sets a bar no phone reaches, regardless of processing power.
Is a compact worth buying if your phone shoots RAW?
The initial question targeted compacts, a segment already hit hard by smartphones. The prevailing verdict is nuanced. For those who don't print large or crop images heavily, a phone with RAW performs well in good lighting. Beyond that, grain and shake indoors betray the small sensor, especially in low-light or night conditions.
Optics remain the reason to carry a compact like the Sony RX100 III, with its built-in viewfinder and 24-70 mm f1.8-2.8 zoom, which leaves any phone behind in quality and control. Furthermore, phones lack capabilities by design: changing focal length, stopping down aperture for depth-of-field play, or tracking moving subjects with continuous autofocus. Phones have fixed focal lengths, fixed apertures, and very limited depth-of-field control. Software cannot overcome these physical constraints.
Software vs. Physics: How far does the trick go?
One school of thought argues that sensors matter less because processing has advanced significantly. Their thesis: noise from tiny sensors is eliminated via software with minimal resolution loss, and phone lenses now rival optics from larger cameras. Some even suggest RAW is useful primarily when the camera cannot handle HDR internally.
Against this narrative lies an uncomfortable detail: comparisons favoring phones are often viewed on standard screens at reduced resolutions, which equalize both contenders downward. Another strong objection concerns tonalidad perception and depth between planes, invisible in thumbnails but apparent in enlarged prints. Some add that phone lenses mix plastic with some glass, whereas professional optics use optical glass and fluorite exclusively.
How the debate ended
As usual. The conversation devolved into insults, comparisons with deleted data, and a crosswalk photo used to calculate pedestrian estimulante ilegal. Those insisting on their phone's virtues announced they were leaving the site. The original poster concluded dryly: "Then we can skip 13 pages of this thread."
However, the practical conclusion was established much earlier: no existential threat. RAW support on phones doesn't bury DSLRs. It squeezes the compact segment, increasingly forced to justify its existence through optics and sensors, not file formats.
When a software update turns a phone into a camera capable of recording RAW files, the temptation to retire your DSLR appears immediately. The OnePlus 2 introduced this support among other new antiestéticatures, and the response across more than a hundred messages reads like a physics textbook rather than a commercial brochure. The majority verdict: uncompressed files improve editing latitude but do not reinvent what enters through the lens. No one disputes that photos can be retouched better. What is debated is whether that suffices to match a larger system.
Technically, the change is real. Saving in RAW means dumping the raw information captured by the sensor into memory, without the compression inherent in factory JPEGs . The advantage becomes evident during editing: you recover shadow and highlight details that compressed files have already discarded. The cost is also clear. Some estimate the resulting file size at ten times larger, while others claim it can reach forty times larger per photo. For video, the overhead becomes simply prohibitive.
Why sensors and optics decide the photo
This is where enthusiasm hits a wall. The argument running throughout the discussion remains constant: size matters. A pea-sized lens and a tiny sensor cannot match the quality of a system with greater light-gathering surface. For technical users, sensor and lens are the only two factors determining image quality; everything else is decoration.
The most repeated comparison mixes high-end and pocket devices: a Canon 5D Mark II with four lenses versus the camera of a carrier-subsidized phone. Mobile advocates note that an acquaintance with that expensive gear had abandoned photography and was astonished by smartphone results in comparisons. Against this stands physics: a handheld shot with a 50mm lens on the 5D sets a bar no phone reaches, regardless of processing power.
Is a compact worth buying if your phone shoots RAW?
The initial question targeted compacts, a segment already hit hard by smartphones. The prevailing verdict is nuanced. For those who don't print large or crop images heavily, a phone with RAW performs well in good lighting. Beyond that, grain and shake indoors betray the small sensor, especially in low-light or night conditions.
Optics remain the reason to carry a compact like the Sony RX100 III, with its built-in viewfinder and 24-70 mm f1.8-2.8 zoom, which leaves any phone behind in quality and control. Furthermore, phones lack capabilities by design: changing focal length, stopping down aperture for depth-of-field play, or tracking moving subjects with continuous autofocus. Phones have fixed focal lengths, fixed apertures, and very limited depth-of-field control. Software cannot overcome these physical constraints.
Software vs. Physics: How far does the trick go?
One school of thought argues that sensors matter less because processing has advanced significantly. Their thesis: noise from tiny sensors is eliminated via software with minimal resolution loss, and phone lenses now rival optics from larger cameras. Some even suggest RAW is useful primarily when the camera cannot handle HDR internally.
Against this narrative lies an uncomfortable detail: comparisons favoring phones are often viewed on standard screens at reduced resolutions, which equalize both contenders downward. Another strong objection concerns tonalidad perception and depth between planes, invisible in thumbnails but apparent in enlarged prints. Some add that phone lenses mix plastic with some glass, whereas professional optics use optical glass and fluorite exclusively.
How the debate ended
As usual. The conversation devolved into insults, comparisons with deleted data, and a crosswalk photo used to calculate pedestrian estimulante ilegal. Those insisting on their phone's virtues announced they were leaving the site. The original poster concluded dryly: "Then we can skip 13 pages of this thread."
However, the practical conclusion was established much earlier: no existential threat. RAW support on phones doesn't bury DSLRs. It squeezes the compact segment, increasingly forced to justify its existence through optics and sensors, not file formats.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (131 replies).
More summaries
-
iPhone 7 Plus in 2026: Security Updates but No Apps
The iPhone 7 Plus still gets security patches in 2026, but many apps no longer work. Is it worth buying used or better to get a new Android?
-
White-label vs. name-brand air conditioners: which should you buy?
Is it worth paying double for a Mitsubishi or Daikin? 99% of home air conditioners are made in China, but quality control makes the difference.
-
Cruzcampo: Spoiled Kegs Fuel North-South Beer War
Unpasteurized Cruzcampo kegs sour in two days, causing taste differences between Seville and Madrid due to low rotation rates.
-
Danish homes for €79,000: The hidden conditions
Housing in Jutland costs €79,000. While the price is real, it requires effective residency, a CPR number, and living there year-round.
-
Spanish Medieval Markets: Inflated Prices and Fake Crafts
35 euros for tiny octopus, stalls costing up to 6,000 euros, and goods from Cobo Calleja. An economic look at Spain's medieval markets.
-
Brita Pitcher: Saving or Scam? Water Filter Costs
Is a Brita pitcher cheaper than bottled water? We analyze real costs, effectiveness, and myths like sodium levels.