A JPG from the camera is taken from a RAW exposure (whether you shoot RAW+JPG or not), and modified in camera. So making a RAW look like a JPG out of camera. . . I don't see the sense.
What you want to know is whether what you'll be photographing will need substantial editing to make it as you like it. If it does, RAW applies. If it only needs minor retouching (if any at all) depends on your subject, the camera settings, and your vision of what you will be capturing/displaying. For good light exposures you should find the JPGs more than sufficient. But you'll take RAW+JPG until you are sure, if you care about every single exposure you make and won't tolerate throw-aways.
I tend to ask a lot from exposures with high ISO, so RAW is key. But the JPGs out of camera are quite impressive (with the same sensor) and sufficient often enough. I'm starting to wonder how much I need to shoot RAW with this rig (but I'll continue with RAW, for I want to eke all that's possible from an exposure, whenever I feel that's necessary).
.
. Here's a reason for RAW. It's impressive, shadows are fine. But some of the blown highlights on the spray and stairs I would like to better tame, and it's not possible with this JPG. Not everyone would be that focused on that nuance here, however - YMMV, that is.
--
...Bob, NYC
.
"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Chief Dan George, Little Big Man
.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bobtullis/
http://www.bobtullis.com
.
