Godfrey
somewhat colored
My Leica M9, M-P 240, M-D 262, SL, and CL output raw files in DNG format, as did my Ricoh GXR and Pentax K10D. (I believe all Leica M digital output DNG, can't remember whether this is also true of the Leica X2 and X113. It's certainly true of the Leica T/TL/TL2 as well.)
The advantage of DNG files is that the raw processing parameters when using ACR and Lightroom can be stored in the DNG file rather than in sidecar files, making file management a little simpler. If you use the Adobe suite of image processing tools, DNG files make interactions between the different applications easier to manage.
Another advantage of DNG format when used to convert some native raw file formats is that the DNG format files can be created with 100% lossless compression, which can save a lot of storage space. This was a significant advantage for some raw file formats in the past when storage space was much more expensive, but is less advantageous now since most native raw formats have incorporated lossless compression and storage space has become far far less expensive.
The presumed 'future advantage' of DNG format is that since DNG is a publicly disclosed format, if support for processing a particular camera type's raw files is ceased, a DNG format file of that camera's raw data will continue to be processable. I haven't seen this happen as yet, but as long as DNG Converter continues to support all the past native raw formats it remains a viable future option should that happen.
The disadvantage of DNG format is that if you want to use the native raw processing software provided by Nikon, Canon, and Olympus (as well as potentially some other manufacturers' software) for their cameras, DNG files are not compatible those processing apps.
There is no difference in the results achievable between native and DNG format raw files when processed with software that supports both raw formats correctly.
I used to regularly convert all my digital camera files to DNG for sake of easier file management and reduced storage space requirements. Of course, since I'm only shooting with Leica M-D and CL cameras now, the question of whether to convert isn't a question any more...
G
Yes, all Leica digital cameras AFAIK save out raw files in DNG format. I think most save in losslessly-compressed DNG, but for one the Leica Q does not offer compression. Its original DNG files average 44Mb (using Mb = 1000x1000 bytes and a 100-file sample) while the average of files converted and compressed by DNG Converter is 26.8Mb, a worthwhile saving.
Pentax digitals have an option to save as DNG instead of the Pentax raw PEF format.
gavinlg
Veteran
Not all DNG are just raw files. One of the DNG formats available in the converter pre-bakes them.
As far as I can remember there were two options for processing to DNG using adobes converter and the one that I used 'finalized' the conversion using the current at the time process. So the later process builds of lightroom which had much improved converstion weren't applied to it unlike the standard CR2 files.
shawn
Veteran
Lightroom certainly supports Linear DNG but I don't know about others. Sigma sd Quattro cameras have the option of shooting in their raw format X3F or they can shoot in DNG. They are stored as linear DNG due to cameras three 'layer' sensor architecture. This allows processing in things like LR instead of requiring Sigma Photo Pro.
Iridient Transformer was definitely designed to allow for better processing of Fuji raw than LR. See http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1468746/1 for some comparisons for example.
Now Brian has expanded that functionality to other camera makes as well. The betas are free to try. And it would allow for users of older versions of LR to continue to use it with the newest cameras.
Shawn
Godfrey
somewhat colored
All true, but the exception rather than the rule. To store linear DNG format, you have to do the demosaic transform to separate the channels, but you don't do the gamma correction. Fuji XTrans, Sigma, etc are all "odd" sensors that do not use the Bayer mosaic architecture.
However, linear DNG is completely unnecessary for converting Olympus .ORF files to DNG (the subject of this thread), and I'd recommend against it. Its use is not warranted by any of the tests I've done as providing any benefits, and it expands DNG file size by approximately 3x. Why argue about an edge case solution that has little added value?
Of course, the right solution is to obtain a version of Lightroom or some other raw converter that is enabled with the right camera calibration profile and can understand the native Olympus raw files. As I said up-thread, Lightroom v6.14 is still available, is the last perpetual license version, and handles nearly all currently available cameras ... Olympus and otherwise.
BTW: Improvements to the Lightroom 6 raw engine enable my 2003 generation Olympus E-1 to produce very clean, high quality color images at as high as ISO 1600 sensitivity, and very good quality B&W images at up to ISO 3200. That's a two-stop speed gain on a fifteen year old camera that was last updated firmware-wise in 2007. Not bad at all..
raid
Dad Photographer
I use LR5 to open ORF files from EP2 and-EPL1, and I let LR convert the files to jpg after some slight PP here and there, if needed.
