I took RAW photos with the iPhone 16 Pro Max, Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6, Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold, and a DSLR, and the results shocked me

When you buy through links in our articles, Future and its distribution partners may earn a commission.

Sometimes you want every pixel and if we’re talking photography, that means shooting in RAW. Professional photographers do this all the time, but for the rest of us, JPEGs are fine – at least I think they are.

The reality is that most of the smartphone photos we see and share are far removed from the capabilities of any sensor on our best smartphones or even the best digital cameras. The main camera sensor on my iPhone 16 Pro Max is 48 megapixels, but I usually shoot at 24 MP or even 12 MP, and images are usually stored as JPEGS. Smartphones do this to achieve maximum compatibility and keep file sizes small.

Professionals shoot in RAW for maximum image control. They want all the detail that images of at least 300 ppi and 8,000 x 4,000 pixels can provide. Average consumers don’t want or need RAW files because each image file can be huge, sometimes as large as 60 MB, as opposed to the 1 MB to 3.5 MB size of a typical high-quality JPEG. Shooting in RAW is similar to shooting video in 4K or even 8K instead of the typical 1920×1080 resolution.

Virtually all major smartphones can now shoot in RAW format, meaning images that use every pixel and do little or nothing to compress or alter the original images. What if, if I were wondering, I took some photos in RAW mode with the iPhone 16 Pro Max, iPhone 15 Pro Max, Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 and Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold and compared them to RAW images captured with my Canon EOS RP , a DSLR with a 26.2MP full-frame CMOS sensor equipped with a 35mm kit lens. What would I see? Would I be disappointed, pleasantly surprised, or somewhere in between?

I cut down smartphone categories because I was looking for updated main sensors in the 50MP range. Here’s how my test group breaks down:

• iPhone 16 Pro Max: 48 MP Fusion: 24 mm, ƒ/1.78 aperture

• iPhone 15 Pro Max: 48 MP Main: 24 mm, ƒ/1.78 aperture

• Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6: 50 MP f/1.8 aperture

• Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold: 48 MP ƒ/1.7 aperture

• Canon EOS RP: 26.2MP f/1.8

As you can see, there is some parity here, and if we rely on sensor capabilities and less on special lenses and the vagaries of compression technology, perhaps we can see the world as sensors from Apple, Samsung, Google and Canon see it. . I understand that smartphone companies are not building these sensors. Although Apple has not confirmed, most reports claim that the iPhone 16 Pro Max’s main camera sensor is the Sony IMX903. Samsung may be using the Isocell GNJ. Most believe that the Pixel 9 Pro fold is using the Sony IMX858. Canon makes its own sensor.

Your smartphones are not natively configured to shoot in RAW format. My Canon was set to record and store in JPG and RAW simultaneously (dual files for each image). On the Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold, I opened the camera app, selected the settings icon, opened the Pro settings, and selected the RAW + JPEG option. Now, like my Canon, the Pixel saves RAW and JPEG of each image.

The process for the iPhone 16 Pro Max and 15 Pro Max was almost identical, although the former phone has more ProRAW options. I started by opening Camera in Settings and turning on “ProRAW and resolution control”. After that, I navigated to the Pro Default settings where I chose ProRAW Max (up to 48MP) and JPEG-XL Lossless for the format. In 15 Pro Max, it did not have the additional “PRORAW FORMAT” options.

Samsung has plenty of Pro controls in its main camera app, but it leaves RAW out and dedicates an entirely separate app, ExpertRAW, to it. I downloaded the app to my Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6, set my megapixels to 50, and let it save in JPG and RAW.

The only other problem was getting the photos to my Mac for review. I had no problems uploading DNG files from the Pixel 9 Pro Fold and Galaxy Z Fold 6 to Google Drive, but things got a little more complicated with the iPhone.

If I tried to AirDrop, the iPhone automatically changed the format to JPEG, dropping my PPI from 300 to 72. Eventually, I discovered that my iCloud-synced images could be dragged and dropped from Photos on my desktop directly into open files from Photoshop, which maintained the resolution and PPI.

What I found

Before we delve into my findings, I need to prepare you. Below are some image comparisons. They are not the original RAW images because it is impossible to show them on a highly compressed website. Instead, I set each image preview to 100% and cropped untouched portions of the images to illustrate where I saw significant differences between the RAW image captures.

I didn’t take many images, but I focused on a few images taken just a few minutes apart and from more or less exactly the same perspective, distance, and lighting conditions. I didn’t do anything to adjust the exposure or focus. I shot on a few sunny days, giving each main camera the best chance of capturing beautiful RAW images.

Image 1 of 9

Image 2 of 9

Image 3 of 9

Image 4 of 9

Image 5 of 9

Image 6 of 9

Image 7 of 9

Image 8 of 9

Image 9 of 9

To cut to the chase, Canon RAW images are generally superior to all images captured with my smartphone collection. The differences aren’t huge, but in terms of detail, color accuracy, and willingness to let deep shadows be deep shadows, the Canon wins.

When it comes to the RAW battle of smartphones (foldable and otherwise), the iPhone 16 Pro Max stands out, with the iPhone 15 Pro Max close behind. Clarity is about the same, but colors in the 16 Pro RAW image could be a little more accurate. The Pixel 9 Pro Fold delivers really vibrant colors, but with a slight lack of dimension due to the large depth of field (the default).

Samsung’s RAW images gain in sharpness (the 8160×6120 resolution is slightly higher than the iPhone’s 8064×4536), but the colors are not as vibrant. Furthermore, as the bokeh is not as strong, the images do not have the depth of those on the iPhone 16 Pro Max. Its shadow management, where the phone does not try to brighten dark areas too much, is better than that of the iPhone.

Image 1 of 3

Image 2 of 3

Image 3 of 3

When I opened the RAW images on my MacBook Air’s screen, they all looked good. For my review, however, I made each image 100% so I could examine the details. In each case, this revealed the strengths and weaknesses of their RAW image capture capabilities.

In the photo of pumpkins and flowers on my porch, none of the smartphones could match the combination of slate detail and color accuracy that I could see in the Canon photo.

In photos of the rocket trumpet flowers, the iPhone 16 Pro Max (and iPhone 15 Pro) offer lots of detail right down to the veins in the petals. Compared to the Canon, however, it lacks nuance when it comes to shadows and that frustrating habit of trying to light everything. The result is perhaps more visual information than you get with the Canon (or in real life), but also a lack of contrast that would normally help with details like specks on petals.

I still prefer Apple’s approach here over the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6. The colors lean too much towards a vibrancy that isn’t true to life. At Samsung, the switch from sunlight to shadow is poorly handled and ends up looking surreal.

While there have been cases, like the pumpkin stem, where the iPhone 16 Pro and Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6 have surpassed the Canon in sharpness and detail, nothing beats the Canon EOS RP in color accuracy.

Overall, the iPhone 16 Pro Max has the best basic smartphone RAW photography, followed closely by the Samsung Galaxy Z Fold 6. The Google Pixel 9 Pro Fold lags behind. Its colors are the least accurate (oversaturated and lacking nuance) and, likely because its RAW photos are about half the resolution of those on the iPhone 16 Pro Max, it lacks the clarity of its competitors.

Image 1 of 2

Image 2 of 2

The fact that the Canon EOS RP has outperformed all smartphones should come as no surprise. A larger lens, greater physical distance between lens and sensor, and an approach that focuses on matching what we could previously do with analog film results in the most aesthetically pleasing RAW images. This also means that smartphones still have a long way to go before they can match DSLR RAW image capture capabilities.

You may also like