But why get yourself a 5D3 to shoot JPEG? There must have been a bazillion words written in the RAW vs JPEG debate and the pro-RAW conclusions remain totally valid.
Frankly it freaks me out to shoot JPEG on any camera other than my phone...the potential for post-pro grief makes it a non-starter. If you know for 100% certain your output requirements are modest, check out mRAW.
I bought 2 5D3s to shoot JPEG only. I have shot RAW exclusively for years and edited probably over 100,000 RAW and JPEG images. RAW is really only a benefit to me when I miss the exposure or WB. Sure RAW captures a lot more information but if you don't need that information then it is a waste. I shoot 20-30 weddings a year and probably shoot 3000-5000 pictures per wedding and a good JPEG is just as good as a RAW image unless your settings are off or you plan on doing extensive dodging or burning. If you shoot manual and dial in the WB using the Kelvin color temperature and the WB shift to properly balance the color of the light source your JPEG is going to be as good if not better than if it were taken in RAW.
Way to go. In the real world a camera that can deliver JPEGs with quality and style is a lifesaver. In most of my work there simply isn't enough time to shoot and process RAW. I do test shots to determine the proper exposure value of everything in my field of view, and then use manual exposure to shoot all types of sports. The JPEGs turn out just as good as the best quality RAW files that I could ever process. Yes, I have the latest lightroom 4.1, the latest (Pre version 6, but that hasn't shipped yet) Photoshop / Creative Suite, and even Matlab numerical imaging processing expertise. RAW gives people 6 more bits to handle exposure errors (including exposure errors for certain color channels, aka white balance). People talk about RAW vs. JPEG as if there is some sort of emotion involved rather than just mathematics.
JPEG does not deserve all the criticism it gets; it is a valid choice if you can set your camera up to the proper exposure and you don't have time to make errors in taking pictures. RAW is if you want to dodge and burn, correct exposure, or generally fool around all day with pictures you have taken, like Ken Rockwell does. (Bummer, though, he shoots JPEG, which doesn't make any sense to me since he loves Photoshopping everything. He also seems to have no artistic sense if one looks his latest photo contest winners.)
I am totally neutral on the emotional RAW vs. JPEG debate, but I can tell you one thing for sure: most newbie photographers are not getting good advice by thinking they have to shoot RAW all the time. RAW doesn't make a picture better. It just gives you the ability to do more math to it afterwards.
That's why I don't like hearing all the nonsense about RAW, and why I like to chime in a positive word whenever someone has the bravery to say they sometimes shoot JPEG.
Here's an idea that would actually help people become better photographers, rather than the suggestion to shoot RAW:
Regardless of whether you shoot RAW or JPEG:
* Learn to use manual exposure and how to meter the actual value of the light that is illuminating the subject.
* Expose to this value of light (exposure value).
* Bright subjects will automatically have the proper brightness.
* Dark subjects will automatically be rendered with the proper amount of darkness.
* If shooting JPEG this can even be controlled by changing the Contrast of the picture style.
* Set the white balance carefully with a shutter speed well under the refresh rate of any man-made lighting that may be contributing to the scene. (Usually under 1/10th of a second is a safe speed for setting white balance.). This will avoid any under or over exposure in any of the color channels making the final image.
This will result in every case with fantastically beautiful pictures that make every image pop and every exposure perfect, plus consistent colors. Photography will become super easy.
The only remaining challenge is nailing focus and learning to handle a camera to optimize its AF system quirks, which is a lifelong job as complicated as playing tennis.
But if all the photos turned out perfect, then taking them would be boring, so missing focus once in a while has the benefit of making photography interesting.
No matter how complicated the auto exposure system, shooting in Av, T, or other modes where the camera changes the exposure, results in damage to the exposures far more significant than the 6 bits of freedom that RAW gives.
You can look back through a set of photos taken in Av mode, for instance, and the photos will all have different exposures--dark, light, dark, dark, light, dark, light, light--and on and on. Why in the world??? It's because they are all the wrong exposure. A photo should only be lighter if there is a lighter subject in it, and the exposure should actually stay the same relative to the light source.
Learn to expose correctly. That's way more important.