Originally posted by BigMackCam Er, thanks for that
I don't doubt it.
For this reason, I see limited value in JPEG test shots unless they were to include all the different settings permutations, so that those interested can see what the camera's JPEG engine is capable of. The problem being (and I know you already appreciate this), default setting on every single camera will result in different levels of processing - there's no all-manufacturer standard on JPEG processing levels, so "0" on one camera could be "+3" on another, and "-2" on yet another.
Even for those like yourself who prefer to shoot JPEG, the RAW test shots are - IMHO - more useful in assessing the image quality, since you know you can alter the in-camera settings for JPEG processing to suit...
Exactly. And that makes all comparisons partial and, somehow, subjective like you said, especially when it comes to JPGs. Unless (like you said again) they test JPGs on every single camera changing every single parameter (clarity, sharpness, contrast, colour saturation, brightness, EV...), but that would make every review certainly unapproachable.
I recon that comparing RAWs with default settings are far more fair bearing all this in mind. However, as far as I know, also RAWs can be affected by some in-camera settings, isn't it? What in such case comparing RAWs can still also be a little bit "unfair" and "subjective".
Years ago when I compared straight out of camera JPGs vs RAWs on my Canon 7D, I noticed that there wasn't any virtual difference between both in terms of sharpness, but there was in colour and contrast (being much more appealing the JPGs to my eyes) and that's one of the reasons I only shoot in JPG. Same with my Nikon after comparing JPGs vs RAWs.
Besides, I'm not the kind of guy who spends time with post-processing and keeps both formats for each picture to create from each RAW a third file with TV-friendly extension (again JPG, BMP) to end up filling one HDD every few trips. No. And in case I really need to play with certain photo (in my case 0.01% of times) for instance to increase the dynamic range in strong backlighting conditions or other things, I can also do it with the JPGs, even if the RAWs give me more "room" to play with them.
All I want to do is just to play with the in-camera settings, shoot, transfer and watch. That's it. And keeping only one file per picture (or maximum two just in case of real need of post-processing for certain shots) and save space. All this does not mean I don't pay attention to quality, of course I do, otherwise I would have never jumped to APS-C and then to FF to obtain gradually better dynamic range, contrast, colour accuracy, sharpness... And you can see these improvements on JPGs too.