Originally posted by Winder I'm not going to use DNG if it means lower quality results or crippled features.
Why would it mean "lower quality results"? The data in a DNG file is essentially equivalent to the data in a PEF file.
Regarding "crippled features", that's more a question of the software that processes files (regardless whether they are DNG files or camera-specific RAW files).
You have to distinguish between the format and what that software using that format supports.
You can capture all K-3 specific features with today's DNG version already (through the catch-all "makers notes" field).
But Adobe can nevertheless decide to not support multi-area WB (or some other feature) with ACR.
They can decide to not support it for DNG files and not support it for PEF files.
If you want to use Adobe products then even choosing PEF won't help you, if Adobe does not see any sufficient ROI for implementing the software needed to support new features. If you don't want to use Adobe products then there is the question of why use DNG at all. It is not much of an archival format, if you are keen on brand-specific features, e.g., exactly the lens corrections that Silkypix produces for PEF files. In theory, future DNG converters could emulate Pentax-specific lens corrections, but in practice, DNG is only an archival format for those how are happy with what they are getting from DNG now (e.g., the Adobe supported lens corrections that are informed by Pentax lens profiles, but are otherwise the same for all brands).