Yulenium

ah good thing that you know your math, congratulation. Only 1/64th, jesus! Thats terrible. Out of camera jpgs MUST LOOK REALLY BAD BECAUSE OF THIS NUMBER!
 
Yeah.
No.
 
What you (maybe!) might not know is, what difference it will make in real life. And what 256 different tones per channel actually translates into an image, compared to 4096 or 16384.   
In the end: you send processed 8bit jpgs to your printshop, right?
Does it make a significant difference, when captured a JPG or RAW? Yes and no. It depends so much on your scenery, your processing and what you actually want in the end.
JPGs can be very well be used in serious photowork and general photography! If you know what you are doing and plan your shot (that means: think about it before!)
 
What JPGs can't be used: for internet wars of gear-centric pixel-peeper that like high numbers! 
 
And the information is not "thrown away" but translated into 16 millions of colors. The image does not become suddenly worse in image quality.
12bit or 14bit RAW has much more information, I totally agree. You can easily recover 2 stops of highlights with even years old Aptina 1" sensors like in the Nikon 1 cameras. New cameras give you great option to correct the desired latitude in your shots easily in post. If you need it, like when working to optimize the image in the way you want or need.
 
But could you imagine, that there are people, who deliberately chose jps over raw files? Even pros, that send bloody unaltered and compressed JPG? FOR PUBLICATION IN THE PRESS? HOLY COW, THEY MUST BE AMATEURES NOT TO HANDLE  42MP 16BIT RAW FILES!! 
 
They have something going for them: consistency and a mind towards exposure. Shooting jpg means thinking about what you want in terms of exposure and not underexpose to avoid any clipping and boost exposure +5EV on your crazy awesome 135 FF camera files...
 
No. OOC JPGs have severe limitations. You just cannot pull them that much in post like raw files and will see artifacts much sooner.
Still, I can pull out one stop of highlights on my Fuji JPGs, if needed.
So if you do a good job on exposing your image, you still have some room for modifications!
And no, JPGs are not extreme lossy. I would bet that you could not tell the difference in print of moderately processed JPG and RAW file.
 
Just my opinion. Pixel peeping drives you mad.

Coming from Canon, I've spent the last decade shooting exclusively raw, because 'as any fool knows', it's *better* than jpeg.
 
I've spent the last decade sitting at my computer tweaking and poking the files to get them to something I'm happy with and then printing or exporting the files for display.
 
For the first 5 years, I loved working this way, it opened up new avenues, I could explore, it was fun, but for me, over the past 5 years, it's become a chore, a task, it's not fun anymore and I've noticed a significant drop in my social photography.
 
I've had an X100 on the side for ages, but because 'raw is better', despite shooting in raw + jpeg, I only imported the raw files to Lightroom and my heart would sink when I would see something I was happy with (the jpeg preview) disappear to be replaced by the 'adobe standard' raw - knowing that signaled the start of another set of slider bashing to get it back to something I liked, but you know. it had to be done because 'raw is better'.
 
Finally, with the XPro2, I've decided to reverse my workflow. I'll still shoot raw + jpeg, but I'll import the jpeg only into Lightroom. If (and it has not happened yet), I have a shot I need to push to the limits, I can go find the raw on the card and import it, if not, I'll delete them.
 
For me this means I'm 90% of my time on the camera and perhaps 10% on the computer, perhaps even less. It would have been pretty much the opposite when I started out in digital, but do you know what, neither approach is correct or incorrect, it's just a matter of what works for you, but I'm sure there are a lot of people who shoot raw, not because it works for them, but because it is what is 'expected'.
 
Back in the context of this thread, I'd say if you like the ACROS from the camera, use it. You can develop in camera from your raws and tweak the settings as needed - kind of like a mini version of Lightroom in the camera, with the Fuji magic built in. To my addled mind, the goal of photography is the visual impact of the product, not having a technically lossless version of it. 

My 35 1.4 has zero to no distortion. The 2.0 on the other hand is horrid and its not very sharp wide open at its closest focusing distance. The 1.4 has none of those issues.