DNG file extension vs. Digital Negative

Hey folks! I don't shoot Canon so I'm unsure if this is accurate or not. I've got a friend with a Canon camera who says that he does not ever have to convert to Digital Negative because his file extensions are already ".DNG". Somehow I don't think that his DNG is the same as a digital negative "DNG". The topic came up while discussing ways of reading RAW files from an infrared converted camera. I suggested one method of converting to DNG and then applying a profile. He said "mine are already DNG out of camera". Some clarification would be helpful. Thanks & have a good weekend!

Hate to burst your friends bubble, but they are not DNG files coming out of a Canon camera. If he/she is shooting RAW, they are CR2 files. (Canon Raw version 2). The files on the memory card are CR2's and depending on import the tool can automatically convert them to DNG if desired. LightRoom is one such tool. Have them stick a memory card in a card reader and look at the files on the card with Finder (Mac) or Windows Explorer (PC) and you'll find CR2 raw files if they are indeed shooting raw.

Thank you Keith! That's what I figured but without having used Canon equipment, I had no basis to argue his point. He does use Lightroom...so that's probably where files are being converted to DNG. Thanks so much for the clarification.

Pentax cameras have an option for shooting directly in DNG but Canon does not. DNG is an open format and all camera manufacturers could use it. Aside from 'turf' issues I'm not sure why they don't. It's arguably better in the sense that your edit information done in programs like Lightroom can be written into the EXIF space of the DNG file where it has to be attached to other RAW formats as a "sidecar" file. I shoot with Canon cameras and I convert to DNG on import. I've yet to find or hear of any downside to DNG.