Can all you crazy people please be a little bit cautious about making sweeping statements like "you must be crazy to shoot in RAW" and "you must be crazy not to shoot in RAW"?
I don't think there is a strong argument against the fact that shooting RAW images gives you more post-processing options. However, it does demand more time (learning to make the most of it and processing each picture) and money (to get the computing gear to reduce the per-picture time cost and to backup the larger files properly).
However, if your camera's inbuilt "sensor data to JPEG" conversion is generally acceptable to you (remembering the fact that you can generally tweak the settings) and you struggle to find time to go through all your images and you don't often get frustrated by not being able to tweak them further and you are happy with the output you are getting (hey! that sounds like me!
) then you are arguably not far behind the person who shoots everything in RAW then accepts the default conversion from their image library software and stores terabytes of digital negatives that they will never look at again because they are taking better pictures all the time and, anyway, the proprietary .BUTT files from their trusty Canikon will be made obsolete and nothing will read them anyway.
Yes, I know I could do with more full stops in the above sentence but hopefully you catch my drift; make an informed choice and play nice with others who have chosen differently.
Thanks,
Wulf
ps. I know RAW isn't a true acronym but it does seem an established pattern and it conveys the meaning of a group of file formats, like the NEFs my D40 generates, which are acronyms (although, to be honest, I don't know precisely what for!)