If you take RAW + Jpeg, and open the RAW file in a 3rd party RAW processing program then it will look dull, flat, and maybe a bit unsharp, because those things were set during the Jpeg conversion process in the camera. If you open the RAW file in the manufacturers own processing software then it should look exactly the same as the Jpeg out of the camera, because the software applies the same settings as the camera would have.
Why even use the manufacturers RAW, or indeed any processing software then? Because I know what the scene looked like, I know how sharp I want the image to be, and indeed I know what I want the final image to look like, be that accurate or changed for effect. The settings the camera applies are a guess at the White Balance, though normally a very good guess, and a load of blanket settings applied that don't take into account what the subject is. :shrug:
There is more information in a RAW file if you choose to take advantage of it. The analogy of the RAW being the equivalent of a film negative and the Jpeg being thought of as a 'print' is a good one in broad terms. Although I think there is a lot that can be done to optimise the Jpeg in camera, not many take advantage of that from experience.
When it comes to processing and being better 'Canon Nikon Sony Panasonic et al', like I said, I know what the scene looked like. My computer and the software I use to process files are more powerful than the cameras inbuilt processing. My computer and software is upgradeable, my camera is locked at the point it was released for processing power, (and maybe at the technology point a year or two prior to release) and may or may not get a firmware upgrade after it was released, and even then that is to fix bugs, rather than give new features most of the time.
Nobody needs to shoot RAW, no matter what anyone says, the same as being told to only shoot in manual mode, but there can be advantages to RAW capture. If you can be bothered to have a go it costs nothing to try, :shrug: and by shooting RAW + Jpeg you can try it out without the penalty of losing a shot.
And just to add, you don't have to process every RAW file you capture, just the ones you want to print or show. If you edit the Jpegs you print or show now, then you're doing just about the same amount of work with a RAW file. And without the extra compression cycle of editing a Jpeg, which can be negligible to be honest, but could be significant if you do multiple edit a re-saves on the same file. (not good a good idea anyway)
But if you can't be bothered with RAW files, at least try to use the cameras inbuilt features, Picture Styles, appropriate White Balances etc, to get the best the camera can give you. They will hopefully improve what comes out the camera as a Jpeg.
) actually understand how to process raw files. A raw file is the cameras capture of the image sensor. The JPEG it produces is the development of that raw data using algorithms known only to the camera maker. They are approximated to by other software packages (e.g. Adobe), but only truly emulated if you use the manufacturers software to develop raw into JPEG.