no, I didn’t miss your point at all. Like I said, I completely agree with you. I just found myself wanting more. Show me what a p and s can do, a rebel, a markll. It just made me feel like it should be expanded upon, after all it’s a very complex subject with so many different variables at play. I like that you were able to simplify it, and make a legit statement with it, but at the same time it interested me enough to want you to go further. This is just me, being too serious, as usual lol. It doesn’t take much to get me going.
I’m glad you discovered RAW and it works for you. In no way was implying that you are a sloppy shooter. I was just trying to explain, I enjoy having as much control as possible behind the camera vs behind the computer. Wether software compresses a RAW file to jpeg, or if the compression happens in camera, it still has to happen. Unless you do not edit at all, and print yourself, that RAW data has to be compressed and converted to jpeg, tiff, or dng. I started out working solely with RAW, and slowly but surely found that jpeg was by far the better option for me and how I shoot, minus a few exceptions, missed exposure or wb shooting family , or when I know I want a black and white and need/want more control over the conversion when creating images to sell.
Believe me when I say, a high res jpeg starting out compressed from RAW data in camera, prints just as well as a high res jpeg that was compressed from RAW data by software. As long as both were processed properly and with care, they can be printed for billboards if need be. (That is, if your camera is capable of that size) Quality is not lost, only data that is sometimes very necessary to keep, and other times not necessary at all.
(And yes, by processed I meant in camera)
as far as the loss of sharpness when you shoot jpeg (kind of odd, most notice it the other way around) I believe your camera has the ability to control sharpness, noise reduction etc when having it convert your data to jpeg