Just shot PEFs yesterday, the conversion probably saved some space but the frickin' Lightroom only does things half-arsed!!! I always download and import to a second location at the same time. (always want a backup)
Naturally, I would think that the second copy would be in the format of the imported images ("Copy as DNG")... nope! The backup files are the original PEFs. Maybe that makes sense?

But, if DNG is just as good or better than uncompressed PEFs, why keep them?
Again, I they make me wonder what is being lost in the conversion to make Adobe want to keep the original pre-conversion file in so many cases.

So now I have to do a second conversion of the secondary folder. Quite irritating.
Disk space is cheaper than the time I will be spending on the conversion and the reconversion of the second copies.

What are your use intentions and/or requirements?
It is slightly better at lower light (f1.4 v.s. f1.7)
It is not as good for sharp focus open wide... it is rather soft at f1.4 but gets very nice nearer 2.0+.
I hear the f1.7 is sharper but not sure if that is comparing f1.7 v.s. f1.7, etc...

I've been seeing $350US (thats what I bought mine for 13 years ago).
I believe the f1.7, is much cheaper.

If I had it to do again, I'd probably go for the f1.7.

Nice description. It is in the TIFF format -- which would normally raise a flag that the data is munged to some extent and thats what always bothered me, but it goes on to say there is an extension to the data to describe the sensor pixel layout. As long as the Bayer filter information is properly retained you can get better results with extracting detail and noise reduction than if it was merely a basic TIFF or other reformatted set of data.

That was always my main question and never found a clear description before.
I should have looked at Wikipedia... much simpler than trying to read the full DNG technical specifications.

Never really seen a difference in results from RAW and DNG, but good to know the data should be sufficiently intact and I can stop losing sleep at night over it.

Thanks for the link.

I don't mean because of compression but because of the conversion from RAW to DNG.
I cannot imagine any reason to keep both either... unless there was some modification and/or degradation that would warrant keeping the original data.

It just makes me wonder why that option is there in the first place.
Maybe just a hold-over from when it was needed to keep people happy who were afraid that DNG was going to be problematic? Perhaps it is an option like an appendix -- now something that just isn't necessary anymore and should be removed?

Yeah, but I have dozens upon dozens of folders across disparate locations throughout the hierarchy.
I'd have to search out each folder by modification date of the files and process those individually.
Or just let it chug through the 60000+ photos, of which only about 10000 actually need to be re-converted. (of which many non-DNG files should NOT be modified)
I guess it simply a a lesson for me to keep in mind from this point forward.
Importing takes so darned long to begin with, I just hate to add time for redundant conversion on top of it all.
Have I said ARG! yet?


By the way... anyone have any idea why you might want to include the original RAW files within the DNG?
The comment says it is "just in case you need it later" or something to that effect.
If DNG is truly data-identical to the original RAW file, why have create a method of storing the original in addition the the DNG storage?
That tells me there is some conversion going on that makes the DNG data different and potentially degraded from the original RAW data.
Any ideas?

ARGH!! And of course LR3 will not batch convert existing DNGs to DNGs.
Makes sense but now I'm stuck being unable to reclaim that 30% of disk space!
WTF goes through Pentax's head!?!?!?
Rather upset with Adobe too, of course. They will convert on import but not after the fact. Argh!

Well, I'll tell ya it is rather disappointing that Pentax does such a poor job at compressing their resulting files. Movie files are horribly large.
The DNG and PEFs appear to be compressed poorly (or perhaps not compressed).
Although honestly, they probably chinced out on the processor so saving full sized files is faster than compressing first. Although I'd argue that compressing in a good processor would alleviate some of the write time and allow longer high-speed bursts and faster recovery times. Argh!

Anyway,
Original photos
DNG: 30.6MB
PEF: 28.2MB

Imported to LR3 converted to DNG:
DNG now: 21.4MB
PEF now: 21MB

Looks like I'll be converting my old DNGs to DNGs.

I would probably use PEFs from now on except that I have a few other programs that use DNG but do not know how to handle K5 PEFs. So I'll be converting my DNGs to DNGs from here on out as well.
ARGH!!!

Hmm, thought the files were awfully large. I wonder if I should be re-compressing the DNGs on import.
If they are not compressed at all, I'd be quite disappointed in pentax again.
That is awfully wasteful, but I suppose it allows faster writes??? (of course that also depends if processor is fast enough to compress faster than writing full sized files. )
I may need to look into that wen I have some free time. That could be a good savings on disk space.

For two examples,
PEF: 30.1MB, DNG: 31.8MB
PEF: 25.5MB, DNG: 25.7MB

I thought at some point the DNG was not compressed where the PEF was, but as of the K7 I believe both are compressed.
Although it appears PEF might compress slightly better??

These were hand-held shots, so slight changes in composition may affect compression.
Probably best to do with consistent environment and tripod.

Either way, DNG has worked well for me and I don't have to worry too much about the future of finding a reader for it... if all goes well. i.e. How long do you think the *istD PEF format will continue to be supported? (of course disk space is cheap, no reason to remove the support libraries from major applications, I suppose.. )

Not sure the 1-4% savings is worth the hassle for me in the long run.

Yes, LR3 (which basically uses Adobe Camera Raw) now supports the K5. So you may now use DNG or PEF.
I'm just in the habit of using DNG so that I do not have to wait for software updates.

As far as I know there is no significant quality difference when using DNG or PEF (I still have yet to read on the exact format and how DNG can be data-identical to PEF without some sort of conversion or loss of brand/model specific information)... but either way, the result is what it is. At ;east identical enough that it doesn't matter for most people -- professional or otherwise.

The latest update for LR3 includes Pentax camera lens profiles. Quite a few actually.