DNG is an overall waste of time. This was Adobe's effort to try to take over the market. It failed, mostly because Adobe was forced by the market to provide support for 'native format' RAW files from all the relevant camera manufacturers.

The idea that a DNG is smaller is true only until the Adobe software begins to write their edit instructions into the DNG. Then, these files will tend to get larger.

How does a DNG get smaller than the RAW? By Adobe striping the camera EXIF from the RAW and replacing with Adobe's own EXIF, a mixture of original data, the removal of some of the original camera data, and then Adobe's start-point for their Adobe-specific EXIF.

When you let Adobe remove camera EXIF, you tend to lose the ability to analyze the technical details of the AF configuration using the native camera software. This is especially true if you convert to DNG and discard the original RAW.

The fact that Adobe must support the original (aka native) RAW format, as well as all the players in the digital editor market, pretty much confirms the DNG conversion is a waste of time. The camera manufacturers flatly rejected the idea of outputting DNG from their cameras instead of RAW sensor data. Adobe is big, but not big enough to tell / force the digital camera industry what to do with their cameras.

If you convert to DNG and discard the RAW, well now you're locked-into Adobe and / or software that fully supports the DNG, pretty much only Adobe. That's what Adobe really wants....

"The fact that it was rejected by nearly all Camera manufacturers essentially means that DNG is an anomaly as an unneeded intermediate step. There is no benefit."

"This was Adobe's effort to try to take over the market. It failed, mostly because Adobe was forced by the market to provide support for 'native format' RAW files from all the relevant camera manufacturers."

My understanding is that Adobe created DNG in public domain. I have four cameras that use DNG. Three come from DJI who sells a wide variety of unique flying, action and stabilzed cameras. The fourth is my year old Samsung phone.

It would be fun to know actual unit sales numbers, but between DJI and Samsung phones, I'd conclude that Adobe's DNG program is doing well.

DNG is an overall waste of time. This was Adobe's effort to try to take over the market. It failed, mostly because Adobe was forced by the market to provide support for 'native format' RAW files from all the relevant camera manufacturers.

The idea that a DNG is smaller is true only until the Adobe software begins to write their edit instructions into the DNG. Then, these files will tend to get larger.

How does a DNG get smaller than the RAW? By Adobe striping the camera EXIF from the RAW and replacing with Adobe's own EXIF, a mixture of original data, the removal of some of the original camera data, and then Adobe's start-point for their Adobe-specific EXIF.

When you let Adobe remove camera EXIF, you tend to lose the ability to analyze the technical details of the AF configuration using the native camera software. This is especially true if you convert to DNG and discard the original RAW.

The fact that Adobe must support the original (aka native) RAW format, as well as all the players in the digital editor market, pretty much confirms the DNG conversion is a waste of time. The camera manufacturers flatly rejected the idea of outputting DNG from their cameras instead of RAW sensor data. Adobe is big, but not big enough to tell / force the digital camera industry what to do with their cameras.

If you convert to DNG and discard the RAW, well now you're locked-into Adobe and / or software that fully supports the DNG, pretty much only Adobe. That's what Adobe really wants....

I didn't want to hijack a different thread, so I started this new one:

I have shot all of my images in RAW for many years as a pro.

I convert the files to DNG upon download. DNG file are "slightly" smaller than NEF.
However, I have found that is not necessarily true for Canon files.
I am seeing posts telling others to use the proprietary/native RAW setting over using DNG.

After years of use I don't know of any disadvantages of DNG, but I like the advantage of the sidecar (.xmp)
being incorporated inside the DNG format so that it isn't lost or disassociated.
Other than that, I don't know of the advantages.

What are the explicit advantages of using the proprietary RAW vs DNG? CHG_Canon has mentioned this before.

Let's all keep it civil.

I didn't want to hijack a different thread, so I started this new one:

I have shot all of my images in RAW for many years as a pro.

I convert the files to DNG upon download. DNG file are "slightly" smaller than NEF.
However, I have found that is not necessarily true for Canon files.
I am seeing posts telling others to use the proprietary/native RAW setting over using DNG.

After years of use I don't know of any disadvantages of DNG, but I like the advantage of the sidecar (.xmp)
being incorporated inside the DNG format so that it isn't lost or disassociated.
Other than that, I don't know of the advantages.

What are the explicit advantages of using the proprietary RAW vs DNG? CHG_Canon has mentioned this before.

Let's all keep it civil.