Better shot in JPG. RAW are useless.
Sorry Admund, but I also need to disagree.
RAW files directly from the camera look plain ugly, you need to put some work into them to get pictures looking as great as the JPGs - exposure, contrast, curves adjustment, color saturation, sharpness, etc.
That's for sure!
But JPGs are the result of countless of the above and more optimizations, done in an automated way, for achieving a pleasant look. By doing that, details vanish because the algorithms cannot know what exactly you want the picture to look like, which areas or details are important to you.
A typical example is underexposed and overexposed areas, like a darker landscape with a brighter sky. Algorithms will try to achieve a kind of balance; if the landscape is too dark, they will increase overall brightness, leading to sky getting overexposed, "burning out". That problem becomes a permanent part of the JPG, you cannot correct it later, the sky details are lost forever.
But if you are shooting RAWs, you'll always try to underexpose the picture a bit, so bright areas won't get overexposed. That's why manual settings (at least EV corrections) are THAT important, that's why enthusiasts cry for manual settings!
Of course the landscape will turn out to be too dark. But with RAW, you can increase the exposure and other details using several means in a way that darker areas get exposed correctly AND bright areas won't get overexposed, so you won't lose any details. You can even choose different corrections for different areas.
That way, you often can even save details from slightly overexposed areas, and masses of details of heavily underexposed parts.
That's why RAW is almost always a great choice. It's more effort and it needs some experience. But it's worth going that extra mile.
Just set your camera to take JPG and RAW - and if the JPG is okay, you just use the JPG. But if the JPG turns out to have some serious issues, you can use it's RAW sibling for saving all the things lost in the JPG.