Another time where this will work to your advantage (depending on your skill & who you are shooting for) would be if you are shooting runway shows. I was in NY in September covering Mercedes Benz Fashion Week and I started the week out shooting RAW. I wasn't completely delighted with the write speed & being able to capture the model at right moments in their stride so I switched to JPEG. For this I had to get the Kelvin for each tent I was shooting in and set the white balance & then shoot JPEG. Because the lights are always down by the time photographers are let in to populate the media riser and only come up seconds before the first model walks, getting the Kelvin takes a little detective work. If you are shooting for publication / wide media distribution, then color accuracy is completely critical, (followed in close second by your ability to distribute those images before the end of the next show), so if you are unsure then keep it in RAW, timing your shots with the models stride, and stock up on your CF supply :)

When I got my Sony CD1000, I set it on JPEG, the best, and left it there. I didn't get as pics per CD as Hubby, who set his CD1000 for less sharp pics. Had no idea what Raw images were. Then he got a Sony a300, which was supposed to be a better camera, but I still liked my pics better. Then I got a Sony a300, set it at RAW, and he had his still set at JPEG. I still get less pics per memory card than him, but prefer the quality I get more than his. Since we print large landscape pics, I will stay with the RAW.

Great point about color accuracy. It's especially important in that kind of industry where art/fashion/color are key to proper portrayal.

Yeah, if you're making large prints I think it's important to utilize the information that RAW image capture carries.

thanks for the tip!!

Damien,
I edited an NFL game that we had three shooters at two weeks ago. Each of the three shooters shot about 3000 images at the game. That's THOUSAND. No, no RAW pix from this event. Jpeg really is the only viable option sometimes.

That's a perfect example of when shooting Jpeg instead of RAW really is the better option for many.

You don't get a higher FPS when shooting JPEG, that statement is wrong. The number of frames that you can take before the buffer fills is greater when shooting JPEG over RAW, but that is it.

The only time I would shoot in just JPEG these days is when I'm shooting for casual HDR. Otherwise, it's Raw every time. If I needed JPEGs for printing or tweeting, I'd use RAW+JPEG every time. Storage is cheap, reshooting isn't.

Oh, and last World Superbikes race I covered for motoracereports.com I took 4500 photos. Like I said, storage is cheap.

Joel,

You are correct. I wrote that funny. My intention was towards the longer bursts or more frames captured in bursts rather than "faster".

I will correct that.

Thank you.