Why Don't Camera's Have Raw Histograms?

I can make the whites whatever colour you like so I don't see your point. I don't know how close to pure white the dog's fur was.

The same on my screen. Border colour comes up as 211,211,211 using PSE's Color Picker Tool but that is just what is set in the web page's CSS for the border colour.

211,211,211 can look different on different monitors depending on how/if they are calibrated and profiled.

This shot is taken in lossy mode, making a good conversion more difficult (less bits, and sharpening acts over compression artifacts, leading to halos).
The shot can use +1 EV, and probably a different focusing.
For the reference, here is the default Sony conversion, 8-bit TIFF, sRGB:
s3.amazonaws.com/IliahBorg/A7M01564.TIF

Yes, a little warmer than DonaldB's "out of camera" JPEG. By default Sony conversion do you mean using Sony Raw converter? Odd that it has a different color balance than A7m4. I like Danno's warmer colors though perhaps they are not accurate.

Also why does Firefox think TIFF is a security risk?
www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/answer/Attack-by-TIFF-images-What-are-the-vulnerabilities-in-LibTIFF

I really don't like the out-of-focus rendition of that lens. The foreground seems to have multiple layers with sudden transitions. The background items look shaky or something. This is the problem with full-frame. Give me an iPhone for this shot, I'd probably like it better.

Embedded JPEG:

Yes.

Shaky background is something I occasionally see when using image stabilization, which was used here.

I wonder how exactly is this discussion "on topic". :-)

In the meantime, with not much effort given, I am delighted to see what current cameras and processing can do. There were times where ISO800/1600 was where it got very ugly. Not anymore.
I wonder why camera reviewers are saying that high ISO settings are completely garbage, and not usable for anything than marketing purposes.
Welp, for basic documentation and mobile/FB content viewing, there is not much wrong about it.
The old 24Mpx sensor of Z5 (D600 with some tweaks) "still got it".
All nonsense photos just for testing purposes, but ISO 51200 nonetheless:

Fine by me.

Bhaha, the left rear leg made my day. :-) Great skills, Jim! But the parrot was way too funny iteration.

www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-2224/product_id-3881/Libtiff-Libtiff.html

It appears to me you have done some backpedaling here from your original assertion that those that don't settle for OOC JPEGs do so because "they lack confidence knowing they make mistakes." You have also qualified "exceptional." To bring this back to the topic of the thread, some of us try to make photographs of high DR scenes, and even with the rather low DR scenes like the ones you are presenting we want to get the most we can from our cameras which in turn will give us the most we can from the resulting files to work with in the processing of the shot into a photograph. Some of us choose to get around the limitations our camera's OOC JPEGs have with the challenge of high DR scenes in particular by using ETTR, that requires a very different approach to exposure than what you use, and it renders the OOC JPEG useless. That is why it is not fear of making a mistake due to a lack of skill that leads us to shooting Raw rather than OOC JPEGs.

you guys crack me up. when placed to show your processing skills back down.

the sky is purple.
nice detail raw really helped. just for others the raw is left

About a stop underexposed form ETTR.

It helps even more when it's raw (lossless).

you really dont understand what this post is about do you ? yet comment and dont even know what the topic is.🥱

Really strange combing in that histogram.