Why Don't Camera's Have Raw Histograms?

You know what faststone is a better raw convertor than all the other programs. why ? i just converted the raw and then took the jpeg into photoshop
and measured the black point of the image and it was as low as 3 3 3, directly behind the bird it was 7

Sony craw is 13 bit precision.

That proves, using Sony hardware and software, that the camera's histogram, zebras/blinkies are not necessarily a reliable indicator of clipping in the raw data :-D

That is what people have been telling you all along and now even Sony is effectively telling you :-D

Bhahahaha! 😅😂😂😂😂

You got me. That is some artsy expression. Could not think of better one. Just wow.

400k image 🥱, post a full res image so we can scrutinize it 😁

A: How dishonest you want to be?
B: Yes.

If you want to post a challenge, you absolutely need to post requirements or benchmark, allow for multiple tries, and so on. What you do is not a proper fair challenge. I knew I never find that one, as about noone ever on the internet did it.
I try again and again, and always get this tricky nonsense or no response. You did no better in that regard.

Maybe I didn't read it well or missed something, but Donald did not personally attack you (for the way you reacted anyways). He just accused you of doing this and that, which is not true. For the love of god, for the fun, for the truth, don't refrain from debunking this nonsense professionally. Maybe we do a collage of this one day. That will do Donald for good. 🤭

DonaldB is a proven liar and so it's good to see more people are seeing how he operates.

He has falsified my posts in his quotes of them.

He has plagiarised other people's work and stupidly tried to justify it by saying he didn't actually claim in his post that it was his work even though he didn't reference the plagiarised work. How dumb is that? :-D

This clearly proves that any images or whatever he posts might not actually be his unless he actually claims it is.

So who knows where the images he posts come from and what processing has been done to them to support the agenda he is pushing at the time :-)

No, not when it's not ETTR.
Lossy is not 14 bits in any case. 12 in your.

No, I don't know that. But I'm sure you can prove it to everybody.

Also "no it's not". In underexposed shot, the bits are empty/missing. You could make it 64 bit file, with no fo sequences to the image data or quality. Someone is failing logic big time. I think the reference to chess is very true. I haven't seen such denial in years.

He attacked somebody else saying that I proved it.

it was on DPreview knock yourself out finding it was 5 months ago River Photography

I don't want to understand anymore. I mean I can't rely on what he said. It matters to me to the depth of what you say, and I don't want to verify by re-reading it all. I leave it at my vague reading, as I can't lose my time with Donald's keyboard output.
Best of luck. Maybe we reach some end one day.

😂 truth will ALWAYS prevail. poor old Dunno will always come unstuck 😁

people read into my post only to reject/oppose my POV I say its black they say its white ,they will never agree . because if they do they loose.

You said it's still 14 bits. Well, it's not. Do you agree?

you seem to know more than Sony 🥱