Uncompressed RAW: Any advantage over Lossless Compressed RAW?

While I shoot only compressed RAW with my Nikon, I've always believed that if you are cutting off 30 Mb of info from the file, you must be losing something It may be in the darkest shadows or the brightest highlight, and may only show up in a billboard size print, but something must be compromised, IMHO. You can't give away that much data without changing the image.

Hee's an interesting test on the subject:
http://francoismalan.com/2011/10/raw-12bit-or-14bit-lossy-or-lossless/

Notice in the conclusion he says "My conclusion is that even in this extreme example there is very little difference between either 12-bit and 14-bit or between uncompressed or compressed results. If one had to seek differences I would say that the colour reproduction is less degraded in the uncompressed and for the 14-bit RAW images."

There is also some discussion at the end of the piece. Bottom line: everyone says there is a difference, the question is can YOU live with it. I can, and do.

--
pjs
'Consulting the rules of composition before taking a photograph
is like consulting the laws of gravity before going for a walk.'
Edward Weston