Just wondering and out of curiosity,if a person mostly shoots in jpeg,would it be worth getting the Canon 1DX?If not,why?
If you need to ask this question you probably don't need a 1D X.
You get the stupid comment of the day award, and this is impressive, considering the high MP and 6D threads going on right now.
To actually help, yes you can shoot JPEG if you need fast turnaround time/minimal processing. A good example of this is when I first transitioned from event photography to sports photography. When I first shooting sports, the school needed the photos right after the game to post on an update website. This is no longer the case and I now do RAW shooting and do 8 x 10's for the athletes (NOT necessarily for the school). Just remember if you are shooting JPEG, you'll need to shoot at a certain sharpness, contrast, white balance needs to be correct, etc., more so than RAW shooting. For the 1DX? I'd probably set sharpness to 3, but that's just my preference. You'll need to experiment with other things like contrast and saturation. This is what I did and it helped for when you cannot process your images. Hope this helps.
Whether someone buys a 1DX or a 20D, the determining factor on whether they need the 1DX or not is NOT what type of image they shoot. Prime example is SI shooters than send the JPEGS straight to laptop, straight to SI for live updates and post-game photos, hence why that comment is nothing but assanine.
To further answer your question, yes shooting in JPEG mode has nothing to do with the 1DX. You will still get all of the advantages and power of the 1DX, so go ahead and buy it if you can afford it even if you shoot in JPEG.