I'm going to find out as I just ordered one. They were having a 25% off sale so it cost less than $65 and since they had an option to pay for it through Amazon Prime, I got free shipping. In the end, with sales tax, it was just under $70, about a $100 less than the Weberly. And when I get it, I'll let all of you know what I think of it. Note that I've purchased items by Neewer in the past and have been more than satisfied and so I'm hoping for the same experience here, but you'll know, one way or the other.

That's because 1. Your raw editing skills are probably poor and 2. You screwed your exposure for the raw file by shooting raw+JPEG. You're exposing the raw and JPEG the same.

I was out with my camera yesterday. I took the photo you see below. I exposed the sensor in my camera to it's recording capacity and got the best possible raw file. The scene is backlit and high contrast so I had to lift the shadows to make the photo you see. Look at the sky. It's not faked; I processed it which I could do because I exposed for it and recorded it.

The second image is the SOOC JPEG. Look at the sky. The camera's JPEG processor nuked the sky into oblivion. But you can edit that easily right? Going to go get a fake sky from Luminar right? I'll process another 1/2 dozen raw files while you screw with that nonsense. That's another reason I shoot raw -- IT'S SO MUCH EASIER! I processed that raw file in a few minutes. If you wanted to shoot JPEG and make sure you exposed the sky in that scene you'd have to reduce exposure by more than a stop. Imagine what the rest of the scene will look like then. And then you're going to have to lift the shadows in a JPEG from near black and that's going to look like garbage.

Oh wait you can turn on JPEG magic and set the camera to make an HDR or something. And you'll have to edit that; I've seen those disasters. Again, that's the reason I shoot raw -- IT'S SO MUCH EASIER! I set the exposure for the sensor and click and I'm done. I go home and process the raw file in a fraction of the time it'll take you to try and edit a much-less-exposed JPEG to look half as good.

The foundation of your argument is bogus. Expose the raw file to full advantage and compare that with a JPEG.

Some people are unable to see or appreciate the difference between a well edited jpeg and a well edited raw file. For them, shooting and editing in raw would seem to be a waste of time. Obsession has nothing to do with it and detail is one of the lesser reasons for editing raw files. For me the overall appearance is what differentiates between a so-so shot and one that could be described as special. To achieve that improvement in overall appearance, the brightness levels, contrast, colour and attention-directing have to be as good as they can be and there is no doubt that raw files give a better starting point for achieving that objective.

The more pushing and pulling a file needs, the greater the advantage of starting with a raw file, and the need for pushing and pulling is only occasionally due to error on the part of the photographer. The most common reason for a file needing something more than moderate pushing and pulling is a lack of ideal circumstances at the time of shooting.

Better results give a greater feeling of satisfaction and achievement, and for a professional they can be the difference between a struggling business and a successful one. I would say that referring to the pursuit of better results as "obsession" is a poor choice of words. To each his own.

One of the more pleasant surprises was in how much correction could be done with a jpg when I had thought it could only be done in RAW. No doubt RAW gives more range, but for me, jpg generally suffices by a good bit. Normally, I'm pretty close, my camera's make it pretty easy.

My enlightenment came one day when I was trying to get a pic of a Swallow Tail butterfly and one landed right beside me. I quickly snapped his pic w/o adjusting for anything other than focus. The picture came out dark, too dark "I thought" for jpg. I was going to toss it when I decided to give it a shot in my editor, and it came out quite good.