Sorry for the rhyme in the title (not intended) but I'm curious as to whether DNG is a good idea now in 2010. I've been searching for information on the topics but it's all from 2006-2008 and I can't find an opinion from "modern day". FWIW I'm a Lightroom 2 user and plan on going to Lightroom 3 when it shows up. First of all - the image quality. Do I lose anything by going to DNG vs the RAW files from my Panasonic FZ8 and the CR2 files from my Canon T2i (aka 550D)? Bits per channel, in-camera parameters, etc? I know it's still better than JPG, but... I don't know if the TIFF it supposedly uses internally is "good enough". Having lens distortion correction with would be fantastic but I don't know of any way to accomplish it other than using Canon's RAW converter and rendering out JPG files (or goofing around in Photoshop manually afterward and likely getting it wrong). I know DNG v1.3 allows for operations that would let this happen in THEORY, but has anyone actually implemented it? Second - files. Does it save any hard disk space? My T2i generates RAW files that are on the order of 28 MB (yikes). I'm using a laptop and backing it up on a Time Capsule - 500 GB doesn't go that far when it's half full of music and now you're shooting 30 MB files instead of 6 MB! Then there's the issue of Adobe Lightroom (using the 2.7 Release Candidate for T2i/550D support) putting sidecar XMP files besides the CR2 files. I hadn't even noticed them, but I suppose DNG files are supposed to integrate the metadata into the DNG so it can't get separated? Opinions, thoughts? Thanks!