Gang, I've already seen several "RAW" threads but they tend to devolve into artistic debates with the participants already quite aware of the underlying question: Is RAW "better"? I moved up to the D300 recently after my D70 developed the unfortunate (GBLOD; Green Blinking Light of Death) and am enjoying it immensely. My pictures are "okay" (years later, I'm still learning) but I've switched to shooting in "14-bit" RAW (presumably the highest resolution on the D300?) and he images don't seem all that clearer than when I shoot in the highest JPEG and I get about 200 images on a 4GB cartridge instead of almost 700. Quality DOES matter but I'm not *seeing* it. I really don't edit my photos other than cropping. I've started to work with CaptureNX but the product seems to want more than the 1GB of RAM on my PC. Is the whole point of shooting in RAW the ability to precisely edit an image? I've yet to have prints of anything made I've done with the D300. Perhaps, this is when I'll see a difference? Thanks in advance.