[STES]

Guess it's not the first time somebody posed this question, but as I'm new to the digital world of Pentax, I've been wondering:

What is the difference between PEF-files and RAW-files. I understand, that PEF is Pentax's proprietory RAW-format. But is there an advantage to PEF, when compared to RAW, or vice versa?

As a long time Nikon-user, I'm used to Nikon-RAW-files, NEF, instead of RAW.

I've just started using my new K-3 ii and have been using the RAW-files, which my Nikon NX2-RAW converter happily downloads and let me preprocess, before I open the files in my photoeditor.

Any thoughts on my question?

Best,

STES

[newmikey]

I suppose you are somewhat confused as PEF and NEF are both proprietary raw formats. Is it the difference between PEF and DNG which are the formats used by Pentax cameras to store raw files? If yes, search for PEF en DNG - too much info on this forum to start repeating stuff.

[Adam]

PEF is a raw format, as is DNG. The contents of the two formats are the same.

The key difference is that DNG is universal (not camera specific) and thus doesn't need profiles/updates to be opened by software that otherwise supports the format (namely adobe software, as well as many free utilities).

If you shoot in PEF, you can use the supplied Pentax digital camera utility to convert to DNG.

I recommend always using DNG unless you don't ever plan to use Adobe software and have a working raw converter.

[D1N0]

RAW is a generic name for image dumps (raw image data) from ccd and cmos sensors. Different camera makers have different proprietary names for them. With Pentax this is PEF and you can also use DNG which is a openly available format from adobe. Nikon uses NEF Canon CR2 etc.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

[newmikey]

I recommend always using DNG unless you don't ever plan to use Adobe software and have a working raw converter.

I'd like to adjust your statement Adam (with a broad smile and no ill intentions) with a slight twist to:
I recommend always using PEF unless you plan to use Adobe software for ever and ever or have no working raw converter.

And, yes, I know we don't see eye2eye on that one - that's ok though...

[STES]

Thanks, guys! Yeah, I discovered the all the previous answers stored on the Forum to my question. Sorry 'bout that, but I'm new around here and haven't adjusted to the wealth of information already accessible. I had no intentions of wasting bandwidth or precious time of you all.
To conclude, the answer as I understand everything I've read really boils down to, whether I believe in the future of Pentax, how much in camera & computer storage I have, whether I use Adobe photo editors (I both do and really don't, as my main photo editor is Affinity Photo, though I have LR5 and have used PS). So I'll try the PEF (I DO believe in the future of Pentax!), and see how it goes ...

Thanks again!

[Parallax]

I recommend always using PEF unless you plan to use Adobe software for ever and ever or have no working raw converter.

Why? There's a plethora of non-Adobe software that will process and convert DNG.

[jatrax]

To conclude, the answer as I understand everything I've read really boils down to, whether I believe in the future of Pentax, how much in camera & computer storage I have, whether I use Adobe photo editors (I both do and really don't, as my main photo editor is Affinity Photo, though I have LR5 and have used PS). So I'll try the PEF (I DO believe in the future of Pentax!), and see how it goes ...

Not exactly correct. Pentax has used both PEF and DNG as RAW formats. And some recent cameras have provided ONLY DNG, not PEF. So believing you have faith in Pentax by using their proprietary format is not really the case when they have provided only DNG in some cameras. I agree with Adam, use DNG unless you have some strong reason to use PEF. And as long as your editor of choice ingests DNG then you have no real reason to use PEF.

Although not everyone agrees, DNG is the RAW format standard such as it is. Whether you use Adobe software or not the format will be supported in the future simply because it is the Adobe standard.

[TonyW]

FWIW, there is another consideration in the proprietary raw (NEF, PEF, CR2 etc) vs DNG debate. This relates to the way edits are stored.

DNG edits in your raw editor will be written directly to (overwriting) the DNG, whereas when proprietary raw files are edited in third party app such as LR and ACR it is considered bad practice to write to an original file therefore xmp or similar sidecar files are written and stored alongside the proprietary raw.

The DNG 'advantage' of a single file holding edit data can be very appealing, against this must be weighed the fact of the original file being erased by overwriting with new instructions after an edit, with the associated risk of data corruption to the original. Also the volume of data being overwritten is the complete file image data plus edit instructions equating to many MB per image vs the sidecar of a few Kb - impacting the speed of saving.

XMP or other sidecar files have the advantages of being very small and they are the only files written to therefore quick to update and as the original proprietary raw never touched offers some benefits to original data protection - if the xmp becomes corrupt/lost then the original raw will still be available.

So I guess you need to weigh the pros and cons of both approaches to make a decision based on your own needs and preferences

[aleonx3]

IMO, there is no real reason to use PEF when the camera also supports DNG, likewise, the same argument goes for Canikon users, if the camera supports DNG besides CR2 or NEF, use DNG whenever it is available in the camera.

[STES]

FWIW, there is another consideration in the proprietary raw (NEF, PEF, CR2 etc) vs DNG debate. This relates to the way edits are stored.

DNG edits in your raw editor will be written directly to (overwriting) the DNG, whereas when proprietary raw files are edited in third party app such as LR and ACR it is considered bad practice to write to an original file therefore xmp or similar sidecar files are written and stored alongside the proprietary raw.

The DNG 'advantage' of a single file holding edit data can be very appealing, against this must be weighed the fact of the original file being erased by overwriting with new instructions after an edit, with the associated risk of data corruption to the original. Also the volume of data being overwritten is the complete file image data plus edit instructions equating to many MB per image vs the sidecar of a few Kb - impacting the speed of saving.

XMP or other sidecar files have the advantages of being very small and they are the only files written to therefore quick to update and as the original proprietary raw never touched offers some benefits to original data protection - if the xmp becomes corrupt/lost then the original raw will still be available.

So I guess you need to weigh the pros and cons of both approaches to make a decision based on your own needs and preferences

Good point, TonyW - I'm really getting educated here. Great.

Thanks a lot!!!

[newmikey]

Why? There's a plethora of non-Adobe software that will process and convert DNG.

Why not? There's a plethora of non-Adobe software that will process and convert PEF.

Listen, I do not want to redo the whole thing over again and again. You want to use DNG for the reason it is an Adobe standard, I do not and for the very same reason. I do not use Adobe software and all of the raw converters I know, certainly all I have used over the past 10 years support PEF just fine. Most of the software I use release updates within mere days, if not hours, of a new camera body coming onto the market, free updates.

DNG is just a solution for an problem I do not have or will have and I believe it isn't for many others. I have no interest in (re)storing my raw files after every edit or update - I actually treat them as read-only archives - anything else would be silly in my eyes, they are raw files.

If I should ever find myself caught in a world without PEF support (not gonna happen), I can always choose to convert my PEF files to DNG but if I should ever be caught in a world without DNG support, nothing I do will get me my PEF files back as the conversion is one way.

I am perfectly happy to use DNG as raw format where it is the native format of the camera such as with my Ricoh GR, no choice there but when I have the choice, I'll choose PEF.

I do not see Nikon, Canon or Olympus users having the same discussions - why should we?

[Parallax]

Why not? There's a plethora of non-Adobe software that will process and convert PEF.

Right. Your post ("unless you plan to use Adobe software for ever and ever ") read, to me, as though you were saying that only Adobe software would process DNG.
PEF and DNG will always be useable so I see neither as having any substantial advantage over the other.

[aleonx3]

DNG edits in your raw editor will be written directly to (overwriting) the DNG, whereas when proprietary raw files are edited in third party app such as LR and ACR it is considered bad practice to write to an original file therefore xmp or similar sidecar files are written and stored alongside the proprietary raw.

Not sure if this is true, DNG, like other RAW files, is not altered by any editor, nothing is written over to the original file, unless there is something new which I have never heard of..

[STES]

Why not? There's a plethora of non-Adobe software that will process and convert PEF.

Listen, I do not want to redo the whole thing over again and again. You want to use DNG for the reason it is an Adobe standard, I do not and for the very same reason. I do not use Adobe software and all of the raw converters I know, certainly all I have used over the past 10 years support PEF just fine. Most of the software I use release updates within mere days, if not hours, of a new camera body coming onto the market, free updates.

DNG is just a solution for an problem I do not have or will have and I believe it isn't for many others. I have no interest in (re)storing my raw files after every edit or update - I actually treat them as read-only archives - anything else would be silly in my eyes, they are raw files.

If I should ever find myself caught in a world without PEF support (not gonna happen), I can always choose to convert my PEF files to DNG but if I should ever be caught in a world without DNG support, nothing I do will get me my PEF files back as the conversion is one way.

I am perfectly happy to use DNG as raw format where it is the native format of the camera such as with my Ricoh GR, no choice there but when I have the choice, I'll choose PEF.

I do not see Nikon, Canon or Olympus users having the same discussions - why should we?

Perhaps because we're left with a choice: PEF or DNG. As I recall going to RAW-files on Nikon, I didn't get a choice: RAW-files were by definition NEF-files, as I remember it.

And with TonyW insightful answer, I feel well prepared for my Pentax-future, so unless there any other technical details or considerations than already discussed in this or other Forum Threads on the subject, I propose the discussion as closed.

Thanks again - I really appreciate the expertise and a good, sober discussion without any ad hominem or heated escalations.