Shoot JPEG again with 5D3

[te4o]

Do some of you guys start shooting Jpeg again with the 5D3 - it is slowly the fact with me: the camera is so much fun to use and jpegs are so good especially high iso that I set the m-fn button to change from RaW to Jpeg Hold. Not every shot needs that massive PP and the camera to my eyes has a good jpeg engine.

135/2 is really fun to use with this AF system. I enjoy total peace of mind: no zoom, no thin MF, just frame and shoot... What a relief!

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I find jpegs with the 5D MK III to be significantly poorer than using raw and striking the balance between seeing detail and noise.

Everyone has their personal preferences, and should do as they like, You are the customer, so compare them and choose.

 

[pwp]

As far as in camera JPEGs go, there is little doubt the 5D3 generates good ones. And there may be non-critical times when a JPEG file is perfectly fine.

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.

It's worth remembering that portfolio standard images often emerge spontaneously from what you first thought was a shoot with low expectations and significance.

My motto? It's a bit like the Boy Scouts one liner..."Be Prepared" (always shoot RAW).

Paul Wright

 

[V8Beast]

Do some of you guys start shooting Jpeg again with the 5D3 - it is slowly the fact with me: the camera is so much fun to use and jpegs are so good especially high iso that I set the m-fn button to change from RaW to Jpeg Hold. Not every shot needs that massive PP and the camera to my eyes has a good jpeg engine.

135/2 is really fun to use with this AF system. I enjoy total peace of mind: no zoom, no thin MF, just frame and shoot... What a relief!

For low ISO stuff, the 5DIII's jpegs are quite good. At high ISO, however, I find the in-camera noise reduction very aggressive. The ability to record both file types onto separate cards is great.

 

[prestonpalmer]

You will get better results with RAW in the end.

 

[jaayres20]

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.

 

[grahamsz]

I actually shot jpeg today for the first time in 4 or 5 years. Was covering a team building event for my employer and they needed the photos for a presentation later that day. Ran it in raw + small jpeg and the results were very good (though standards were pretty low too)

 

[helpful]

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.

 

[Meh]

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.

Interesting viewpoint. I might disagree that your neutral on the emotional debate as you seem to be quite firmly planted on one side and throw around words like nonsense and bravery, etc. However, credit where credit is due and you made a good point... shooting RAW doesn't [automatically] make a picture better, it just gives you the ability to do more with it in post. Of course, if that greater ability to edit in post produces results that couldn't have been achieved with the cameras built-in jpg processing or improves a shot that wasn't perfectly exposed (I assume you are not claiming to be perfect) then it may be worthwhile. While I respect the fact that some people may be shooting in high volume and don't have the time to process RAW files individually (there are default import options and batch processing though) it's a bit emotional and disrespectful of you to take the view that those of us who shoot RAW are "fooling around all day with the pictures they take".

Your post falls into a typical category of response and essentially reads like this "I'm too busy to process RAW files and because I'm actually a good photographer I don't need to because I just get it right in camera so I don't have to waste my time in post like other people do".

 

[Meh]

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.

@helpful.... I see you've now added more to your post while I was typing my previous reply to you and further added your instructions as to how everyone can become a better photographer, get perfect exposure every time, and then not need to worry about RAW files because all the pictures will be beautiful and wonderful. You go on to say that using your techniques photography will become super easy. Ok superstar. I really don't think you understand the difference between the data that's in a RAW file and a JPG and what can be accomplished with that extra data.

 

[vWings]

With the 5DIII I have been shooting RAW to the CF and Large JPG to the SD, a luxury I really appreciate. In nearly all of the sports and people captures I have taken, the JPGs look terrific. So much so that I have ended up spending a bunch of hours in LR 4.1 just trying to get the RAWs to look as good. Then staring at my computer screen, I am in disbelief that I can't get them to look noticeably better. I am the first to admit I am low on the LR learning curve having used Aperture for some time and just converting about a month ago. Frankly, I have begun to wonder if the extra effort on RAW is worthwhile for action shots that mostly end up on website albums, Facebook pages and rarely see large print. Even a lot of the candid and tight shots of faces look fantastic 1x1 from images that originated as JPG. There is still plenty of room to push sharpening and noise reduction even in really high ISO images.

For fast moving sports events with lots of high speed bursts, I am seriously considering going with JPG only for in-game shots. I can use a custom function selection to quickly pop back to CF-RAW/SD-JPG for group photos and unusual situations where I want the security of a good digital negative to fall back on. I am certainly not in the JPG only camp but there are clearly situations that suit it.

edit - please don't refer to me as thinking I am superior at taking photos than the average enthusiast. I don't believe anything other than I am seriously struggling to bring out the benefit that RAW offers.

 

[ramon123]

I agree. Put the RAW on the CF card and the JPEG onto the SD card.

Best of both worlds ;D

 

[spinworkxroy]

I used to be a 60D shooter and i know how many people have said there's no difference in IQ between the 60D and the 5D etc…
However, one thing i've found is that the JPGs out of the 5D using a custom neutral picture style looks alot better than from a 60D. I use to shoot only RAW on my 60D and then convert all to JPG just to get it to look nautral enough..but with the 5D3, in the beginning i've found that after editing my raw files and exporting to jpgs, they look identical to the jpgs that came out of the camera..there was no need for me to edit any RAW to begin with.

However, i still shoot mRaw to the CF card and JPG to the SD card. But 99% of the time i end up deleting all the raw files because i don't need it..BUT it's aways good to have it when i need it…especially for landscapes where you just might need to bring out some shadows or highlights…but most time, i just use the jpgs..the camera does a very good job getting hte photos almost perfect.

 

[te4o]

Thanks for the multiple replies!
@helpful: I really appreciate your post! I like strong convictions and find your tone very convincing. Unfortunately, I don't entirely understand your advice: how comes that you change white balance in seconds? Or tenths of seconds, exposure settings? Do you manually adjust K on white balance? How exactly do you proceed?
I agree that most of the Av shots have strange exposures. How can I learn the correct exposure / aperture ? I'd be still relying on the Ettl metering to check manual settings. Well, I'll try harder to practice manual mode! Now I am tempted.

The reason why I started this thread is that with this camera just like other posters found my jpg look just like postprocessed RAWs already ! I use Aperture plus NIK suite. Could not sharpen better, could not impove the colours, could not significantly improve contrast, so I started putting RAW on CF and jpg on SD but ended up scratching my head. Well, try yourself. It's still early days with the mark III, and I don't state that it's only jpg worth, just that the jpg machine is good and tweaking the incamera settings on contrast, sharpness etc yields a good time saving for non-critical work.

 

[risc32]

Since DXO, my preferred RAW converter, isn't really ready to work with the mk3's RAW files, i've been shooting more jpgs than i have in years. i've been impressed with the mk3's jpg engine. If the exposure is good, and the WB suits you, i really don't see a RAW file making much of a difference. That said, once DXO has a handle on the files i'll likely go back to mostly shooting RAW for most everything but there are surely times when i wouldn't hesitate to shoot jpg. Confusing, isn't it.

 

[kidnaper]

I read a fair amount of responses, but skimmed over the novels... I shoot RAW to CF and JPEG to SD. Depending on use the JPEG is either enough, or good enough for an initial review to decide which RAW of a series to go straight to.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

The RAW v JPEG debate really should be nothing more than a workflow question, and workflow questions are entirely related to the type of photography you're doing.

If you're shooting landscapes in the spirit of Ansel Adams, you'd be a fool to not shoot in RAW. You're going to be twisting and stretching that image in so many ways that you'll need all the data you can get, and the time it takes the converter to do its thing isn't even a blip on the radar.

If you're shooting the Super Bowl for Sports Illustrated, you'll be unemployed in a heartbeat if you don't shoot JPEG. You're not going to be doing any post-processing at all. If your shots need post-processing (other than cropping), it's because you messed up the exposure; make that newbie mistrake again and you're fired. And the editors don't want RAW; they want JPEGs, and they don't have time to run everything through a batch converter -- they need those JPEGs NOW.

Between those two ends of the spectrum, there's lots of variations. There are wedding photographers who take very few exposures and who slave over each much the same way a landscape photographer does; they should and do shoot RAW. Other wedding photographers machine-gun as much as the SI crew for brides who want an album in their hands the next day; they should and do shoot JPEG.

Almost makes you wonder if, maybe, perhaps, possibly, there's a reason why the cameras support both formats and have so many options for picking which to record....

Cheers,

b&

 

[helpful]

With the 5DIII I have been shooting RAW to the CF and Large JPG to the SD, a luxury I really appreciate. In nearly all of the sports and people captures I have taken, the JPGs look terrific. So much so that I have ended up spending a bunch of hours in LR 4.1 just trying to get the RAWs to look as good. Then staring at my computer screen, I am in disbelief that I can't get them to look noticeably better. I am the first to admit I am low on the LR learning curve having used Aperture for some time and just converting about a month ago. Frankly, I have begun to wonder if the extra effort on RAW is worthwhile for action shots that mostly end up on website albums, Facebook pages and rarely see large print. Even a lot of the candid and tight shots of faces look fantastic 1x1 from images that originated as JPG. There is still plenty of room to push sharpening and noise reduction even in really high ISO images.

For fast moving sports events with lots of high speed bursts, I am seriously considering going with JPG only for in-game shots. I can use a custom function selection to quickly pop back to CF-RAW/SD-JPG for group photos and unusual situations where I want the security of a good digital negative to fall back on. I am certainly not in the JPG only camp but there are clearly situations that suit it.

edit - please don't refer to me as thinking I am superior at taking photos than the average enthusiast. I don't believe anything other than I am seriously struggling to bring out the benefit that RAW offers.

That's what I am trying to get across, too. RAW processing makes us duplicate what the camera is already doing, very, very well.

The ultimate output medium of any photography is essentially at the 24-bit color level of a JPEG image.

Why don't we at least try to learn how to use the camera as an effective RAW processor, simply because it is?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

[Why don't we at least try to learn how to use the camera as an effective RAW processor, simply because it is?

Raw is very fast if you learn to use the tools. I use jpeg where appropriate, and have nothing aginst it, but I also know how to process 3000 raw images from a days shoot in a couple of hours or less in raw.

 

[helpful]

Thanks for the multiple replies!
@helpful: I really appreciate your post! I like strong convictions and find your tone very convincing. Unfortunately, I don't entirely understand your advice: how comes that you change white balance in seconds? Or tenths of seconds, exposure settings? Do you manually adjust K on white balance? How exactly do you proceed?

I use a pure white target (white is really a reflection of an equal mixture of the three wavelengths of light) which is not pointed directly at the light source, but between a 45 to 90 degree angle. I try to duplicate the angle of someone's face relative to the light source. I can just use a white paper for simplicity. The side of the paper in the shade usually has a different color cast to it, so go with the side that is most representative of the lighting on your subjects (whether they are people in a room, people on a basketball court, etc.)

I make sure that the RGB histogram is enabled and change the exposure settings to properly expose the paper at a shutter speed 1/10th or below if I am indoors, except under incandescent lighting which does not have color shifts during the alternating current cycle. In natural light (e.g., daytime outdoors) or in 100% incandescent lighting, the shutter speed is irrelevant. I set the custom white balance to the paper, and check the RGB histogram to make sure all color channels are getting the same exposure. I repeat if necessary.

Adjusting Kelvin lets you change the receptivity to the wavelengths of light all at once, but it is not exact as taking a photo of a white subject. White contains an equal amount of all three color channels, red/blue/green, and so it allows all three color channels to be perfectly calibrated to the light source, with a single exposure.

I agree that most of the Av shots have strange exposures. How can I learn the correct exposure / aperture ? I'd be still relying on the Ettl metering to check manual settings. Well, I'll try harder to practice manual mode! Now I am tempted.

During the time when you were setting white balance, you can also determine the proper exposure value for the lighting conditions at the same time. If you know the brightness of the paper, you can use it in place of the neutral gray card (18% usually, but there are arguments about that.)

Your LCD can be a very bad idea of the exposure, especially if it is set to automatic brightness adjustment. (If you get your finger over the sensor below the LCD on the 5D3, for instance, the LCD will go very dim even though your picture's exposure is unchanged). But your histogram is an accurate indication of exposure.

You can look at the RGB histogram of the white paper shot (after setting the white balance) in order to set your exposure. (And this time, just use the same shutter speed and ISO that you expect to use for the action you plan to be shooting). Take a picture of the paper when it is directly facing the light source and you should see a thin high peak for each color channel. Change the exposure (I am assuming you are using manual exposure to be able to control aperture, shutter speed, and ISO) so that the peak for each color channel is about 10% below the right of the histogram. Your paper should be directly reflecting ("aimed at") the light source under the same lighting conditions that your subjects will be photographed in.

Note that there are often different types of light in big stadiums (i.e., some pinker lights, some bluer) and if you are at the wrong spot, sometimes only a row of blue lights are hitting the subjects, for example. And some lights in bad high schools are actually missing parts of the color spectrum. In those cases, proper colors are just about impossible, but it doesn't have anything to do with what format of image you are recording.

I am not trying to bash RAWs. They are a good way to save all the camera's information that was used when the shot was recorded and processed to JPEG, just in case any of that is needed. I will "turn them on" whenever I feel like it. But they only give 6 more bits of data, and a tiny exposure error (just less than one stop) will neutralize any benefit that the RAW may provide.

The reason why I started this thread is that with this camera just like other posters found my jpg look just like postprocessed RAWs already ! I use Aperture plus NIK suite. Could not sharpen better, could not impove the colours, could not significantly improve contrast, so I started putting RAW on CF and jpg on SD but ended up scratching my head. Well, try yourself. It's still early days with the mark III, and I don't state that it's only jpg worth, just that the jpg machine is good and tweaking the incamera settings on contrast, sharpness etc yields a good time saving for non-critical work.