Leica using DNG in stead of their own raw format. Are there downsides?

[Patrick NL]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a history with Nikon and Fujifilm cameras. Both brands have their own raw file formats. And these files, .NEF and .RAF respectively, are different per camera model, making you need updates of software to process the files. A clear advantage of the DNG format Leica uses. But are their disadvantages to this approach? I can imagine some, but I'm wondering your view/insights on this.

[jdlaing]

No disadvantage. Very easy to use.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[LocalHero1953]

It's a clear advantage!

I believe Fuji needs their own format and raw converter because their sensors are non-bayer. Nikon doesn't have that excuse. I had an Olympus OMD-EM5ii for a while - it was always frustrating having to fire up their own s/w with its own interface, just to convert to DNG for Lightroom. Fortunately Ricoh and Sigma, two other cameras I recently owned, also use DNG.

Edited September 8, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[Al Brown]

DNG does not become obsolete on newer OS systems on a mac where, say, sony ARW files cannot be opened anymore after about 7 years.

Edited September 8, 2023 by Al Brown

[zeitz]

The big three (Canon, Nikon and Sony) each use a proprietary raw format.  These companies allow the post-processor developers to use their raw formats.  Note that processing adjustments are saved in an .xmp sidecar file and are not saved in the raw file.

Phase One uses a proprietary raw format.  Phase One does not allow the post-processor developers to work with their raw format.  Only Capture One can open Phase One raw files.  A .tif image file has to be created in order to work with the image in other PP software.

.dng is an Adobe product.  It is available to any company that wants to use it.  Processing adjustments can be saved in either the .dng file itself (with a new file date) or in an .xmp side car.  This is the same Adobe that people despise because of the monthly fee to use Adobe's Lightroom and Photoshop software.  Adobe can drop .dng at anytime they would like, but that certainly will not happen unless Adobe goes out of the Photoshop business.  (Don't we all remember Apple's Aperture fondly.)

My digital Leicas (M8 & M9) have a single embedded profile in their .dng files.  Canon, Nikon and Sony offer a much wider range of embedded/camera matching profiles that are stored in their raw files.  In Nikon's case it is about a dozen profiles that can be selected during post-processing.

The smaller post-processor companies can be slow to add new cameras to the list of those they support.  This can include .dng cameras.

[frame-it]

2 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I believe Fuji needs their own format and raw converter because their sensors are non-bayer.

APS-C[X-series] series have x-trans sensors, GFX series have bayer sensors.

[Patrick NL]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I believe Nikon NEF files contain information that probably doesn't fit in a DNG, like D-Lighting. But why every new camera needs another version of NEF files which need a new version of software is something I never understood. It seems NEF files are not very flexible somehow...

[zeitz]

3 hours ago, Patrick NL said:

I believe Nikon NEF files contain information that probably doesn't fit in a DNG, like D-Lighting.

Canon, Nikon and Sony's raw formats are proprietary so we may never know what is really in them.  I am really going out on a limb here because I am guessing.

Raw files contain no images.  They contain the values read from the sensor pixels; they contain metadata of the conditions under which the file was made (such as D-Lighting info) and of the camera itself; and in some cases they contain space for post-processing edits.  You can force any raw file to open in a text editor, such as TextEdit.app on a Mac.  You can also open any jpeg file in a text editor.  There are some lines that are in English on the files I opened, but most of the lines are in 64 bit "hieroglyphics" which I assume is readable by computer scientists.

 I find it hard to believe there isn't enough space in the .dng specification for D-Lighting information.

I am guessing that the Canon, Nikon and Sony cameras have new versions of their raw files for each new camera because the embedded/camera matching profiles are different for each camera.

Remember, I am speculating and this is purely a guess.  I wish someone who really knows would read this thread.

[idusidusi]

On 9/8/2023 at 4:14 PM, zeitz said:

 (Don't we all remember Apple's Aperture fondly.)!! Yes and what a hassle to move to other apps when it bit the dust.

 

[Tom R]

Proprietary raw file formats might benefit the companies that create them should these same companies also develop and market post-processing tools. Otherwise, if the software development industry is anything like the industry I knew, ignoring or abandoning "standards" almost always reads to business troubles (and thus consumer disappointment and costs) downstream.