Why Don't Camera's Have Raw Histograms?

If you believe that shooting raw is about being able to correct mistakes, then you do not understand the purpose of raw files and should continue using JPEG and let the camera's computer decide what the final output should look like.

of cause im withholding the jpeg till you or anyone else posts the raw converted, then i compare it to the jpeg out of camera.
you thought i was kidding when i said that the jpegs are 1st class.

you missed the point of the post. i was having some friendly banta with Illah.😁 forums get boring otherwise.

But I have no way of verifying how any jpeg you post was created. You have a history of faking images to support the agenda you are pushing at the time.

You are still proving my points 2, 6 and 7 from earlier 😊

What I said was:

As I said, the shot is not exposed for raw. 1/3200 is 1.5 stops too high.

The embedded JPEG looks not very inspiring

Sorry I ruffled your feathers - by all means please do continue your ongoing battle with the other guy.

Hm=k.L.N^2/t

Missed that one, dangit. Where is it?

Playing chess with pigeons? ;)

A true raw histogram would require the implementation of RawDigger onto the camera. So on top of producing the video image for the EVF, and all the other functions like subject detection, eye tracking, etc. the camera will have to run a version of Raw Digger. These processors while powerful are designed for imbedded systems not high performance laptop/desktop computers.

There is also I think an open question of how much more information would a "raw histogram" provide vs. a much easier to compute histogram off the JPEGs. I'm not sure the issue with the utility of the current histograms is not more related to the fact they are derived after all the JPEG processing of the "film simulation" which vs. a robust measurement of the light spectrum.

How could the camera do a robust measurement of the light spectrum? All it's got is three filters.

I don't think so. Maybe one of the functions of RD. RD does lots of things besides presenting a raw histogram.

In Magic Lantern implementation they just do it, no RawDigger there.
BTW RawDigger is a very lightweight application.
Computing histograms from JPEG, by comparison, is a more computationally intensive task.

Such a complicated task, btw.

When I shoot raw, I expect to see the histogram of the data I'm recording into a raw file, not some abstraction through a rendering engine, which, btw, isn't the same I will be using for my raw conversions.
Histogram being distorted by the application of white balance is quite often very misleading and results in photographer using exposure up to 2 stops lower than possible. Histogram that is calculated according to the midpoint and white point calibration for JPEG is misleading when one shoots raw and also directs towards exposure that is lower than possible.

While JPEG brings the midpoint to 18%, in raw it can be 12%, 9%, and even 6%, leaving, to quote Adobe, "a significant amount of highlight headroom during a normal exposure" which "also means normal exposures will contain more shadow noise".

I cant download your image. post the converted raw so i can compare it to my jpeg.

its a great test image. a white bird, direct sun. and everyone thinks you need to shoot raw to preserve white feather detail. not on the a74 and useing Very fine Jpeg.
so you have obviously compared the both files. and see little difference when applying the same adjustments to the jpeg.