Originally posted by Adam For a company as small as Pentax, I think this is beneficial IMO. For some camera models (like the K-3), PEF support wasn't added to popular PP software (like Apple Aperture) until several months after launch.
I was thinking about that. Both Pentax and Leica probably figure they can save some time by using someone else's standard. DNG isn't their battle to fight - it's just a format they can take advantage of.
Between posts I was researching a little more - I couldn't remember if Nikon or Canon had added in-camera DNG support more recently. According to Wikipedia, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji, and Sigma all remain steadfast in their refusal to support DNG in-camera (or even in their software, for the most part).
I won't presume Adobe's original intent was anything but altruistic, over ten years ago when they created DNG (although it
may not have been). But as I read user comments on an independent pro-DNG article (found when I searched for 'Nikon DNG support') it suddenly became crystal clear that
the way it's turning out now is that DNG is a way of
locking people in to using Adobe products in the future. Interestingly, the staunch opposition by the rest of the industry is partly responsible for this situation, if you believe they "should have" supported DNG. Today, if you convert to DNG and discard the originals you can no longer edit in Canon or Nikon's RAW software, and you largely loose support in Capture One, DxO Optics (they support only "linear DNGs," which I understand is one of three variants), and Corel AfterShot, as well as some other software. Perhaps they (correctly?) saw it as a power play on Adobe's part, and believed they had to take a stand. After all, Leica is the only company (that immediately comes to mind) which bundles Adobe software with their cameras, so they don't care. But everyone else potentially could.
I believe that over time the DNG format - with its continual changes - will actually make things more difficult for all the software makers, should they decide to support it. This will be true whether it's house-brand software (e.g. Canon DPP) or "universal" software (e.g. DxO Optics). Perhaps they've realized this, and this is why they're against it. Not to mention that it gives one of their competitors most of the control.
Beyond the DNG battle (be it politics or a fight for survival) and the tell-tale scare tactics and arm-twisting Adobe's used recently, I believe there are some technical problems with converting one's RAW library to DNG (even more-so if done outside of camera). This includes real-world compatibility problems and Adobe's discarding of data It doesn't understand
today (but might tomorrow). Workarounds can be kludges or huge time and space wasters, nullifying DNGs promise of unification and simplification. And some user comments led me to believe that users with future problems may eventually become reliant upon Adobe as their provider and savior, since others may be unable to repair the problems Adobe caused in the first place!
In fact, DNG is probably the least problematic on Pentax (or Ricoh or Leica) than on any other system - but it still doesn't work for me.
Thanks for the comment on Aperture's earlier support of DNG-only on the K-3 - I'd somehow forgotten it happened this way. It helped explain why I had the idea that DNG was better with Aperture (which I stated in another thread recently), in contrast to Capture One which is better with PEF. Perhaps you noticed - if so, thanks for kindly slipping this in.