Even though I mostly use RAW, many users shoot in jpeg mode for various reasons, I believe that most users use jpeg. The fact that the camera produces lower quality jpegs than it should is definitely a con.
The good thing about DPR reviews is that they tell you what works well, and what does not. That allows you to ignore a poorly implemented feature that you have no interest in.
Everyone uses their camera to suit their own taste, so a ideal review would cover all the common functions.
What I do not like is the reviewers who say ignore factual data, and just trust my super abilities to know if a camera is good or bad based on "real world images", which may very well be images they selected to look good, or to look bad, depending on their bias and what they believe.
I do like to see real world images, but I know how easy it is to mess them up either accidentally, or on purpose, so I tend to value that type of review from only a few very good photographers who have proven themselves over the years to give accurate and impartial reviews.
For example, reviews by Canon Makers of Light, or by the Equivalent Nikon photographers tend to bias. They tend to emphasise the good and brush over the bad.
Rob Gailbraith was a Canon who criticised the AF of the 1D MK III and was dropped by Canon from the "Maker of Light" program because he dared point out a serious issue. After that, my opinion of his reviews went way up.
A couple of my other trusted reviewers:
Bryan at "The Digital Picture"
Michael Reichmann at "The Luminous Landscape"
There are a ton of reviewers out there that are good, I just have my favorites.
