[Rondec]

That's a problem with the raw converter, not the file. As was mentioned earlier, Adobe doesn't play nice with pixel shift images, I expect because they can't be bothered to make their raw converter decode them because we are such a small user base.

The odd thing is that I would have thought that once Sony added pixel shift, Adobe would make more effort to adapt to it. Obviously, if it is only Pentax and Olympus users, then there is no particular reason (Olympus' implementation is different from Pentax's as well).

Of course, Adobe can say that they do process pixel shift -- they just don't apply motion correction to the images, which can give pretty wonky results -- particularly if there is moving water in the image.

[newmikey]

...running 3 to 4 different software's there is no need to continually paying for the updates or subscriptions to use newer versions...

I fully understand your motivation which is one of the reasons I switched to free and open software 15+ years ago. Frequently updated and no subscriptions either. The software gets updated faster than I can buy a new camera usually.

[Wheatfield]

Yes, I agree. And if the abcd camera brand specific DNG is fully compliant with the standard, but no raw converter can read it, I'm asking myself what's the value of DNG being a standard?

What's the value of anything being standardized?

I suspect if Sony, for example, used DNG files and packed pixel shift images into them there wouldn't be an issue because it would be worth it for the programmers to spend the effort.
For a small company like Pentax, not so much.

It's still better to have standards than the hot mess that camera manufacturers have made with every native file being specific to one camera and one camera only. That is the antithesis of standards.