[xdennis]

I find this argument nonsensical. Cameras don't force you to take 300 images, nor shoot RAW. As someone who shoots on film, I hear this all the time from people who try to justify why they shoot on film (...and then blow through ten rolls of Portra).

[grujicd]

I should explained that I mostly shoot kids, birthdays and their sport and other events. Strictly on amateur level, but for this kind of occasions it's quite beneficial to take 300 shots since it all happens in the moment and you'll have a lot of misses to end up with 30 keepers.

Also, jpeg straight out of camera can be ok if you're controlling circumstances and have time to take test pictures and adjust parameters. And not change entire scene in a seconds. Once I went to RAW I could never come back. Now you don't have to worry about white balance or even exposure in the heat of moment. It allows you to really save a lot of these shots which would be lost in jpeg. Price you pay is staring in 300 raw images afterwards.

I must admit this affects my desire to use DSLR in the first place. I tend to use only if absolutely necessary.