This may seem as something of a "Johnny come lately" response to all of the above.
While reviewing of my digital workflow I've just recently come back to take a "new" look at DNG. And, to be frank, I still can't be bothered - DNG and the rendering thereof - by whatever means or process - is nowhere near ready for the big time.
In response to some of the comments above. I've just used Adobe's DNG Converter 6.7 RC1 to create a set of DNG files. These DNGs work as expected in Bridge and CS5.
While C1 6.3.4 opens up the DNGs, it seems like the only tools I can use in C1 are those that are part of the Exposure set. Nothing in the Lens set seems to work - there, under 'Lens" you get "Unsupported file". In the "Color" set, nothing seems to work there either. As an observation, in trying to converter the image to black and white, only that image's thumbnail changes, not the main image. So, bye-bye to DNG.
As Jeff Schewe has pointed out in this discussion, Phase One may be a little slow in coming to the party. This may be the case. At the end of the day, its up to me to make a choice - Capture One or LR. I've given up on LR - as of version 3.6. My principle reason (and a very subjective one at that) is that LR is incapable of rendering my images to my satisfaction.
How so? Back in the days of film I stopped using Kodak in favour of Fuji. This was based in a series of images that I shot on 120 film. In all the images and on a hill some kilometres way, there were some pylons and power lines going over that hill. While I could see the power lines on the Fuji film, they were not there in Kodak images. More recently and on architectural shoot, I "captured" this high-rise building. At the main entrance there was a small notice - say 30x30 centimetres (a foot square for those not in the know). I was taking the shot from about 200 meters away from that entrance. I first rendered the image in LR3 at the time. For the life of me, I couldn't get this particular detail sharp and this really bothered me - as in, "is it me or the camera or the lens (a TS 24mm) or camera shake"?
Eventually I ran the RAW files through CPP (Canon PP). There I got this detail as sharp as I had seen and envisaged it. Sometime after this event, I went over to Capture One and more or less got the same rendering as I had got on CPP with obviously more controls at hand - this on C1. As a result, I have never bothered further with LR. To me, LR seems to add on "stuff" (for lack of a better term) that seems to "mush" up my images.
For the life of me, I have tried fathoming a digital workflow that will flow. At the moment I see DNG as being nothing more than another time wasting "obstacle" that's getting between me, my camera and taking the next picture. Currently I go from CR2 to TIFF. The originals are archived, the duplicates are renamed and rated. The selects are then converted to 16-bit TIFFs and I work on these at my leisure. These then are my masterfiles and from here, create JPEGS or whatever is required for uses further down the line.
While the concepts of DNG are laudable - as in keeping all the meta and other data together with the RAW file, the present implementations seem to be nothing more than beta fodderware are best. The day that DNG proves to be a suitable alternative to TIFF and just as stable and resilient, is the day when I may come back to review this format - and I can't see this happening any time soon though.
Hmm, my life for a image on film - at least it is tangible and real. Thanks for indulging me...