Croasdail wrote in post #6482060
I almost never shot sports raw because I don't have time to mess with it. I rely on stuff to come out of the camera pretty much fully baked. If I were shooting studio or other stuff like that - sure I use RAW. But deadlines and all - not worth the fraction of an improvement unless the environment is particularly harsh. Different strokes for different folks.
I'm with you... I shoot just about everything JPEG for sports. I have just recently started shooting a little more RAW, but don't see the benefit yet.
Dan-o wrote in post #6482228
In Lightroom there isn't any difference in speed between RAW and JPGs.
I would have to disagree with you on this one. The file size difference between a JPEG and RAW file, at least from a Mark III, is pretty big. That slows my Mac down quite a bit. In addition, the JPEG processed images look closer to the way I want them than Lightroom's RAW conversion. I am sure its probably possible to get to the point eventually where I could get similar speeds, but it would take me quite a bit of fiddling to match the JPEG processing that the camera does (or run them through the Canon software first which would obviously take a lot longer), and a pricey upgrade to my hardware.
I guess it all depends on what you are planning to do with them. For me, I'm looking to process them all as quickly as possible and I don't print big enough to need the extra that RAW might bring. I'll keep playing with some non-critical images and eventually I might get RAW in Lightroom to look comparible to what JPEG does with a lot less effort.