RAW vs DNG

[pdirestajr]

One difference I notice is that the DNG file doesn't preserve a few of the Canon specific details- like showing where focus points were used. Besides that, I don't notice much of a difference.

[TexPhoto]

Who wants to wear t-shirts that say "I shoot DNG"?, or" DNG to the Core"?  Seriously, it does not have the sex appeal of RAW.

[Bruce Photography]

One difference I notice is that the DNG file doesn't preserve a few of the Canon specific details- like showing where focus points were used. Besides that, I don't notice much of a difference.

Good note.  For now that is the reason I stay with CR2 until DNG has all the meta info that is inside a CR2.  Even though focus point isn't really that great to know, at least it helps to know which point you started with.

[K-amps]

Who wants to wear t-shirts that say "I shoot DNG"?, or" DNG to the Core"?  Seriously, it does not have the sex appeal of RAW.

We all "shoot" RAW 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

One difference I notice is that the DNG file doesn't preserve a few of the Canon specific details- like showing where focus points were used. Besides that, I don't notice much of a difference.

There are now THREE flavors of DNG. 

One which embeds the entire RAW file in it with all the raw information in addition to the edit info.

One which embeds only the edited image(This is the one most are discussing here)

One which embeds the edited image with lossy compression, but not as much as jpeg.  It might be better than saving jpegs?  Its new and can be tested in Lightroom 4.

You can take your choice.