That is a really annoying limitation! But I find AF so good anyhow that I seldom feel the need to chimp!Both (by which I mean RAW+JPEG), because otherwise it's more difficult to judge sharpness in camera (because when only shooting RAW, it uses the low-resolution JPEG preview inside the RAW).
Paul, I'm reprocessing some of my 2005-6 Nikon Coolpix E5000 RAWs. The difference between CS2 (?) and CC 2020 is stark. The original JPEGs were rubbish.I can see that if you're into genres that require fast frame rates (sports, BIF etc) then JPEG may have an advantage in terms of handling the sheer volume of shots, but for anything else, I struggle to see the reasoning for it - certainly as a sole output format. JPEGs will always suffer some loss compared to the raw, and they will contain artifacts that can never be reversed (sharpening, NR, tone curve, WB). Why would you want to spend lots of £/$/€/yen/whatever on an expensive camera and then add compromises? It would be like buying a really expensive Hi-Fi and then passing the output through a lossy compress/expand speaker cable. I accept the "good enough" argument (since otherwise I'd be shooting Fuji medium format or such like), but unless the post processing really is too much for you, there's nothing that a JPEG can do that you can't get out of a raw. Then of course, there's always the chance that some later PP technology could enhance a shot you took years ago.
Anyhow - I rest my case!