You're welcome Ronnie.
I think it's worth mentioning that the review Ken Rockwell gave is a few years old now, cameras have come a long way since then. He does give a quite good 'feel' on what he writes, he's obviously had a lot of experience but I have found that many reviews tend to assume that everyone wants to only print photos.
He does mention there is no difference except if you want to enlarge the photo to 100%, then you can see a difference. As I take macro photos of insects I do crop my photos down a lot so it may be worth my trying to shoot in RAW. As mentioned though, digi cameras have improved a lot and the results I get are already quite good in jpeg.
It depends on what you want to get out of your photography, for me I would like a small improvement but maybe not at the expense of the time it would take to shoot in RAW and of course the enormous file sizes do slow the computer up. I have a high spec computer which should be able to cope, and loads of space but the computer would get clogged up so I ask myself if it's worth it in the long run. I can take a lot of photos although lately I haven't taken as many as usual, I don't want to spend more time editing if I can help it.
There's figures on Nikon of the photo size in RAW and jpeg along with load time, the buffer capacity would suffer too. I shoot in Large (fine) jpeg so files are already around 7.8MB which my computer copes with. The last lot I downloaded was over 800 photos but I left it longer than usual.
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineu...
Anyone should be able to find similar figures for their camera so they can weigh up the odds.
