I have had a Cannon 1DS Mark 111 for a year now now and it shoots RAW and JPEG at the same time. I had it on Raw and JPEG on accident on our trip to Canada and found for rivers, treess and mountains that RAW is a better format. It gave better shadows on the water where trees reflected and seems properly exposed . I found that I like it. It does take 23 MP. per picture instead of 8MP for JPEG. but I dnt care cause SD cards are so cheap. Does anyone prefer RAW over JPEG?

RAW

Lightroom

I prefer raw. Raw is the digital negative and has more freedom to to post process without the digital compression associated with JPEG.

I record both RAW and jpeg fine, but do not recall the last time I used the jpeg from the camera. There is so much more latitude for adjustments with RAW in ACR/Adobe Camera Raw before making final adjustments in PS.
Only 8MP for the jpeg? Did you have it set for jpeg small?

https://photographylife.com/raw-vs-jpeg

Since I started using Fuji X-series cameras I haven't had much occasion to use RAW files. The JPEG's look just fine. I still record RAW files, though, because storage is cheap and advances in software often can, years down the line, be used to bring out a camera's full potential. For example, processing RAW files from my old Nikon D2X with today's Photoshop reveals just how good that camera's sensor was--and still is.

Reddrabit, I am on 21 megapixels for both . I dont know why it only reads 8 -10 mp per photo.

Raw exclusively around here. Can't do much with JPEG in post processing so it's a waste of memory.

I generally shoot jpeg as I do very little post processing, usually only a little cropping if needed

Yep. One is leaving a lot on the table for post processing with JPEG only.

RAW all day every day.

There is no substitute for RAW, well maybe DNG but we wont get into that.

RAW gives you all the information that comes into the chip except for the metering data.

The more ones and zeros you have to work with the better.
You can save photos you never could before. You can shoot dark (more ones and zeros) keeping the ISO and reducing the noise/grain, and still make it work better in the end.
Bringing in detail that would otherwise be lost.

Again, if one has any post processing abilities at all, go raw. JPG only if images are needed for immediate use or transfer.

I decided to just shoot RAW for my outside pictures. I can't believe how much better they are with darker shadows and stuff.

Raw and LR or PS, I use both.

I dont know what LR or PS is.

LR=Lightroom
PS=Photoshop

If you are not using either LR or PS, there is not really any advantage with RAW straight out of the camera?

I gun JPEG in all of my 1D-Series bodies,in both APS-H and FF sensors.

Hint..................