Well, I hate to disappoint, but having read all 10 pages I'm going to change my mind*.
I've always used JPG, for buffer, transfer speed, and computer storage. Of course I always nailed the exposure so it wasn't a problem...
...except when I didn't...
Having recently acquired a 5D Mark IV as a "day-to-day" camera, I didn't have the luxury of 2 CF cards, so I purchased a 128GB card to permit Raw & JPG - this camera isn't needed as the "speed demon", as I have the 1DX as primary.
At a recent (outdoor) Athletics event, I nailed the exposure (M) for the early morning sun and was very happy with the results, until I realised that I could get more variation, and shots from multiple events, at the other end of the track. Before I had time to settle in, one of the races started and I fired off some shots of my favourite runner. Whoops.
The camera preview showed that I was about 2 stops out, so during the subsequent processing (Aperture, which doesn't support the 5D4 Raw files) I tried to adjust the (JPG) curves to recover the image. Absolutely no chance. I'm not any kind of expert at PP, but the results were horrible, and unacceptable.
I reviewed the same image in DPP (4), and despite not knowing how the software works, had a usable image within seconds.
I am converted! I will use Raw all the time
...except of course when I need 12fps, don't have space on my computer or CF cards, or time to transfer 70 MB images.
In truth, I've seen the light and will carefully consider either option (or both) each time I shoot somewhere new. While this might be a change of direction, I think it highlights the need to reconsider options as technology changes. Cheaper CF cards, Raw + JPG options, larger buffers, better low ISO and increased fps all help me achieve a level of performance that was previously only available with JPG on an older body.