Does it really make a difference if you get a high end digital camera doesn't do raw files?

I am looking at a really nice camera that doesn't have a RAW feature. But I've read from a couple of professional photographers that it's really not that important as far as controlling an image when you use software.

I have read that taking photos in 'raw' format has advantages over regular jpeg files, but some professional photographers claim that if you use photoshop, you can fix the images that no one can tell the difference what the original format was.

Maybe you can click on the little pencil icon under your question and "Add details" to tell us specifically which camera you are looking at.

RAW would not be necessary for most photography. Pros might like it for the flexibility that it gives in image adjustments, but I would bet that for every RAW image that is taken, 1,000 or 1,000,000 are taken in JPEG.

See: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tec... and: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nik... for one opinion with a lot of explanation. Report It

Huh? I dont get it.... Are you saying if your using good software you can get good pictures? Not true. Its extrememly hard to change JPEG files like sharpening or adding contrast to it due to the fact it does not have a lot of information to work with. RAW files are 10MB while most JPEGs are 3 or 4 MBs.

I think you mean its not the camera its the photographer....

Ummm, what are you asking? RAW is better to have if you plan to use image software like Adobe Photoshop. It's more versatile and you can better correct problems afterwards. If you're just taking everyday pics I doubt you'd need RAW.