I used to use both all the time, just to play it safe. For many years jpg is all there were, RAW was the interloper. Photoshop in those days would not recognize NEF (Nikon's RAW) for instance. Then I had to use a DNG converter. But Photoshop Cloud is the only way to go for serious photographers; that too I did with great reluctance but for $10 a month it soon became obvious it was the way to go, you get automatic updates for all the new stuff, including the RAW/NEF recognition. Why pay hundreds periodically to update? When I got a 24mp camera, I needed to have more room to save the bigger files. Again, I feel a serious photographer needs a lot of megapixels. You can't crop effectively without them. Very reluctantly I decided to try to shoot with just RAW. I found I really had no use for all those jpg negatives clogging up my camera memory card or my computer itself. I used to waste hours of time when I needed space, deleting jpgs or putting them on discs, etc. to free up hard drive space. It is just a useless luxury for those who don't do much photography or maybe have some need to jpgs ready all the time unprocessed. Personally I find processing necessary, so I wouldn't use a straight jpg from the camera anyhow. My conclusion: use camera jpg if thats ALL you need, no RAW. Otherwise ou can always make a jpg yourself during processing, which is what I do at the end and put my own "extension" of .web on the file name. Jpgs are useless pretty much except for transmitting wirelessly like on the web, where they are necessary. Of course if you are not a serious photographer you might want to just just jpg on your camera to save space; but in that case I would question why you are even using a DSLR. If you are serious at all about photography it makes no sense to use jpg on the camera, just use RAW.