Originally posted by jcdoss I thought PEF and DNG were pretty much the same thing. I've been using DNG since I do use Lightroom. Are there advantages to using PEF in my case?
If a new camera comes out, it can sometimes take a while for the various raw converters to catch up.
This is not an issue with the DNG format.
Other than that there isn't anything one way or the other that's better or worse and if a person is always a generation back from the latest and greatest camera, they will never have a problem.
I switched from PEF to DNG with the K10 because my software wouldn't play with the K10 PEF files, but would play nice with DNG.
It was a couple of months before the software caught up, but by then I was not going to switch back.
---------- Post added Jul 1st, 2022 at 06:08 PM ----------
Originally posted by biz-engineer Are we sure that Pentax (or other brand) DNG would be read-able if Pentax wouldn't be supported?
Personally, I'm not so sure about how generic are DNG files, and I think (maybe I'm wrong) that each camera manufacturer has it's own way of using the DNG container. If the DNG implementation is brand specific, that means there's no generic advantage over PEF.
The DNG format has a set of specifications it has to meet to be valid. The idea of the format is to be universal and brand agnostic.
This differs from camera maker's formats which are not only brand specific, they are model specific as well.
This is why if one buys a brand new camera, it can sometimes be a while until it's files are readable in various raw converters and why eventually older raw converters simply stop supporting new camera native formats, whereas DNG files are readable in any raw converter that supports the DNG format.
I still have Photoshop 7 on an old laptop. This was the first version of Photoshop that had a raw converter and predates the CS suites. It will open K1 DNG files, though it takes a very long time and there is no good reason for doing it other than random curiosity.
The point is that one doesn't have to get onto the buy new software hamster wheel to keep up with one's new camera with DNG, while it's a real possibility if one is using a native format.
The DNG format allows the user to extend the life of their older software if it is doing everything the user wants it to do. Manufacturer's native formats don't necessarily allow that.
---------- Post added Jul 1st, 2022 at 06:09 PM ----------
Originally posted by newmikey You are all ignoring the elephant in the room: when presented with a DNG file, there is no obvious way to tell whether it is really a raw file or even whether it is actually produced by a specific camera respecting the DNG guidelines. It could be:
1) A straight out of camera raw file (from a camera manufacturer offering the DNG option to store raw in-camera)
2) A manipulated raw file stored by LR (or some other software)
3) The result of a conversion of a proprietary raw file to DNG via any of the many existing converters which may or may not result in the loss of proprietary Maker notes
4) Same as (3) but now in a lossy compression format which may even omit some sensor data besides Maker notes
5) A non-raw image file (post demosaicing, post WB or both) stored inside a DNG container
6) Any other variation I have not yet named above
This is not about fear but about certainty. The certainty that a PEF/NEF/CR2/ORF/ARW/etc file comes straight out of the camera which generated it, with only minimal adjustments allowed to its EXIF (such as copyright info or GPS coordinates)
Strawman.
---------- Post added Jul 1st, 2022 at 06:12 PM ----------
Originally posted by newmikey Thanks, that clears up where you stand. You don't really care about all of the software improvements and technical experience gained since 2017 and you have no interest in availing yourself of any camera potential in the sensor data of newer camera models since that same date. I will never understand the fact people buy the latest and greatest DSLR body only to subsequently not use it to the fullest of its capability and/or the fullest of newer software developments available.
Another strawman with a hint of ad hominem attack thrown in for good measure.