I just watched this bit on DigitalRev TV which said that UV filters reduce contrast. [ame=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e9TUIC-Dtk&feature=player_embedded]UV Filter vs No UV Filter - DigitalRev TV Test - YouTube[/ame] It was pretty clear to see on the examples given. But I couldn't see a difference on my camera. (e-p3 with 12mm lens) I took about 20 shots at 1/2000 under different lighting conditions and couldn't see a difference with or without the filter? (I posted 100% crops on flickr: uv filter tests - a set on Flickr ) <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnshare/6082605483/" title="uv-test-5A by awatahurm, on Flickr"> View attachment 174010 "962" height="722" alt="uv-test-5A"></a> <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnshare/6082606025/" title="uv-test-5B by awatahurm, on Flickr"> View attachment 174011 "948" height="711" alt="uv-test-5B"></a> How do most people on this forum shoot? With or without uv filters? PS Oops. I just went over my images at 200% and noticed that there was a slight reduction in contrast. I also didn't consider that jpeg conversion might be erasing the differences. So I'll have to shoot some RAW images and see how they look in Olympus Viewer 2. In any case I still wonder if the difference in quality is worth risking the life of my lenses.