Small sensors, raw capture.......does it really help that much?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
LeeStG
Regular MemberPosts: 226
Like?
Small sensors, raw capture.......does it really help that much?
6 months ago

I'm curious how people will weigh in on this one. With the exception of point & shoots such as the Sony RX100/100 2 and the Canon G series, most point & shoots have pretty small sensors.

I get that the price goes up in this order. Manual controls first, add in RAW capture second. My question is, for most point & shoots is the RAW capture really worth the extra money over similar models without these features? Image quality wise, I mean.

I've noticed in Lightroom I can still take a jpeg and give it a boost here, a notch up there and it's an improvement. I work with full frame and RAW files all the time and I understand how much more leeway one gets with a RAW file vs JPEG but in the case of point & shoots........even if you're trying to preserve as much image quality as possible, how much can one expect to improve a RAW file from such small sensors?

I'm curious because it will answer a question for me as to whether there is any point to buying point & shoots in the middle price range.  I can understand the advantage of having manual controls but I'm honestly wondering how much use RAW capture is on some of these point/shoots and if the image quality basically is the same, just with the added illusion that, with RAW, you can make something grand out of something that was never meant to be .........grand.

I don't really have my mind made up as to what I think so I'm totally open to what members will post on this subject. Thanks

ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Flat view
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
ForumParentFirstPreviousNextNext unread
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow