secretworld

No link, but i know what happens. A little above that value the wells are full so 12^2 is never reached at all. In the raw software 2111 should be treated as the maximum value for all channels. ...

In my experience no. Here the 12-32 is a little sharper then the 14-45, although maybe the edges are a little less, but not problematic here. I did see that the focussing can be a little off at 12 ...

I have used the 14-140 II from a friend. It is a very nice lens as everybody is saying. But... are you sure a 12-32 14-42 ii or 14-45 is not a smaller and hence better option? When I use my GM1 ...

If you have 14 meaningful bits, yes a disadvantage when processing later if you put them in 12 bits, but if the last 2 bits are noise there is no disadvantage at all. With audio we are at the ...

Yes yes but it is 12 bit sampling which poses the limit , not the Raw. And the sampling has an upper limit, clipping and a lower limit, the noise. And yes you can then map the data so that 0 is ...

You really should think this over! Of course what you say looks correct but it is not! this is posturisation (sorry no idea of correct spelling) and is a lack of enough sample depth. So yes for ...

Of course it does if it is a linear system. You can of course map the linear 12 bits any way you like visually, but remember you are almost always reducing DR when viewing.

I think you are all wrong...RAW is linear (as opposed to jpgs and video codecs) so 12 bit raw = 12EV. But...... since light is always dithered by its own noise (photon noise) you can have more ...

As you can see in my sign. I have multiple m4/3 cameras including the GM1. I prefer my GM1 with the 12-32 in good light. It is an extremely sharp lens and stabilized. I have shot whole ...

Agreed! Except maybe substantial. All was just my humble viewpoint and that was what was asked for, right? Your points are just as valid and I am curious what the OP will decide in the end.

If you have no problems an upgrade would solve....don't do it! The only semi worthwhile thing would be to go for a GM5 with 12-32 and 35-100 f4 (and your 20mm) for size and weight, but your G3 is ...

I really like my 20mm but did not like my 14mm and sold it. The sides and corners where not to good. Centre was very sharp though. I love my 7-14 f4. Sometimes you need WIDE. But if you don't need ...

Yes the lenses are actually wider then advertised, for a fact! On the rest you are right, only thing is we don't know how much stretching or compressing so could be 2% or 10% loss, but I don't know ...

I have tested my good copies of my 12-32 and 14-45 against the 12-35 f2.8 in a shop. And honestly, IQ wise there is no difference (GX7 with electronic shutter). It was a street shot at about 20m ...

You are soooo wrong! Lens performance can be and is looked at in raw. All mayor test sites do this. You can not measure sharpness from a jpg! And as a rule the raw lens quality is very good. Some ...

Yes different raw converter handle distortion differently and so the result can differ especially at how wide the results are. Some loose more at the edges then others. but it is more a bayer filter ...

It is very easy to have a look at the uncorrected picture using for example Photo ninja or capture one or some free raw converters. Somehow I always prefer the uncorrected image at least ...

If you have a look at the VFA test shots of this site, you will see it is not a loss of sharpness per se but more a loss of contrast at 400mm. The whites are becoming grey! Since contrast is what ...

Agreed, since I have cameras with electronic shutters, all lenses I own got better :-) . Before that my 20mm f1.7 (which doesn't suffer from SS) was really better then my 14-45mm, but now the are ...

AFAIK you can try this by taping over the electrical contacts of the lens. You can even open the lens and disconnect the cable to the aperture motor.