Originally posted by K200D If you're going to work on it with adobe anyways, why go through the trouble of converting PEF to DNG?? For the sake of SD card space? That's the same argument people have when they shoot JPG instead of Raw. So why not just shoot DNG straight up?
Simply because not all Raw converters support DNG or apply the specific camera models colour profile. Capture One and Bibble come to mind.
I agree that if you are working Adobe only (I don't) it's a moot point, but you still need to compress the camera DNG files to save disk space, so you may as well work with PEF anyway and convert to compressed DNG, that way it's still a single step, but you will get the advantage of approx 50% more shots per card and the choice of different RC's if you choose to do so later.
Shooting PEF gives you all the options, you save space on your card and drives, you can save to compressed DNG if you wish. Remember you cannot make a PEF from a DNG, but you can the other way round. I don't like one way streets!
There is a lot more under the hood to Raw formats and Raw converter choice than is apparent from just a cursory glance (which is what most people do).
I will always choose to shoot in the makers native format until the whole industry agrees to adopt a universal format - DNG is not there yet by a long way. I see as much chance of this as that hot place freezing over!
EDIT
For an in depth overview and discussion of Raw formats and DNG, I suggest visiting this section in the OpenRaw website
http://www.openraw.org/node/1482
Last edited by Richard Day; 11-09-2008 at 03:44 AM.
Reason: Added footnote