Not the RAW v JPEG issue "again" lol
Anyway, I see what Micheal is saying here, and its a valid point. However, not all jpegs are created equal. I have always been very happy quality wise with my KM5D on jpegs, excellent processing, and low compression offered too.
I have taken shots jpeg, maybe I could have done RAW, some good ones too. I do not have sleepless nights over it, nor do I worry that my compact is jpeg only. There is a place for both, and most of us are well aware of the pros and cons.
I don't subscribe to the RAW only way of thinking. For the simple reason:
You do not always want to shoot RAW, example, informal shots..kiddies party or something, who wants to sit for ages processing their RAW files? Not me, so I use jpeg for that kinda thing. Even working stuff, used jpegs, not a problem. I do use RAW a good bit too.
I imagine most jpeg shooters are in the know on things, esp exposure. So if I shoot jpeg, and expose more for the highlights..problem solved.
I will have to point out a few things though:
You can adjust WB with jpegs, though its not "as easy" or you may run into trouble if your WB is miles off.
You can also pull up shadows pretty well on "some" cameras, the ones with "good" jpegs.
Maybe Micheal is a tad one sided on this issue, a bit more balance wouldn't be a bad thing. I am not suggesting he does a "Ken Rockwell" and jpeg love etc etc. But its a bit like the endless film v digital debate. Its a non issue. Use what you like, be aware of the pros and cons, and take those shots! I frankly never wonder if a photo is jpeg, raw, film, shot with a tasty lens, or a beaten up ancient thing, its just the image that counts.
Cmon folks, we don't know how good we have it nowadays..maybe time to crack out some wetplates and get back to the real thing? eh? lol