RAW or JPEG?

This is another question that is the subject of periodic, and sometimes ill-tempered, debates, especially at dpreview.com. My own view is that which is best depends on the context. (And sometimes it may be better to use both and decide afterwards which to use, although as it happens that is not an approach I have ever used much.) 

I started out using JPEG because at first I didn't know about raw. Then I knew about it but my cameras did not. Then my cameras knew about it but I didn't know how to deal with raw files. Then I knew about how to deal with raw files (at least in outline) but wasn't convinced it was worth the extra effort. Eventually I came to the conclusion that there were advantages to using raw and as I used raw more I came to realise that it didn't involve any more effort than using JPEG, and in some cases actually less effort.

It remained like that for some time, until I started using stacking. For focus bracketing with the Panasonic G80 I quickly switched from using raw to using JPEG because with raw the buffer would fill up and then the capture rate would become extremely slow. But I didn't use focus bracketing much because I found that I preferred using post focus to capture videos from which to extract JPEG images to stack. So now I use video-derived JPEGs most of the time for botanical images, and raw for everything else.

I took an active part in a very long (and in this case good-natured) series of threads at dpreview about JPEG and raw, discussions that I found very informative. (This post at dpreview contains links to the 12 threads concerned.)