Enjoyed discussion of PRIME vs, ZOOM lenses. Now I would like to ask any one who used TELE EXTENDER supplemental lenses. For over 5 decades, 2X tele extender was very cheap alternative for getting your SLR
camera system, i.e. made a normal lens 50mm/f=1.4 to 100mm/f-2.8. The image quality in center was acceptable but edges are terrible. So, it was used for only portrait photography? Yes, it was very good special artistic tool.
Meanwhile, as optical design and production have been making great progress, I start using two tele extenders for my EF 70-200/2,8. They are small and light weight, 1.4X extender make my lens 105 to 300mm f=4.0. Then, the 2X piece making my relatively heavy big lens 140 to 400mm 5.6. Realized, sensor ISO can be good and much higher than film time, so I had better handling to shoot sport photography EF 300mm f=2.8. Since I borrowed such fast prime lens, I did not have time to make comparison. Is any one there shooting with modern improved tele extender's?

Two nights ago I did a gig at a Chamber of Commerce event at a very high end community center. I was hired by the chamber, as was a social media guy, and a video guy. There was also an independent person taking photos. What we all had in common (and this has never happened before!) was we were all using Sony equipment. Now I know this will ruffle the gentle feathers of so many on this blog, but the reality is that market share is everything, and I as a Sony shooter am even amazed at how much is changing in the professional sphere. Years ago it was rare to find a pro shooting Sony, and now it seems that we are the majority. For there to be four image makers at an event and all of them using Sony had me pretty shocked. People vote with their feet and their money, and the other brands have to be on notice to up their game.

Speculation is that they are the secondary sign of syphilis.
Yes, there are links:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/01/18/trumps-red-hand-markings-draw-wild-speculation-including-syphilis-conspiracies/?sh=77bdfee523d4

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/18/donald-trump-hand-sores-photo-social-media/72265930007/

Is it syphilis? I don't have a clue but he certainly is a horn-dog, so it's possible.
If it is, it would probably explain his cognitive decline.

My understanding is that which mode you use should be based on shutter speed - at least between EFCS & mechanical. I don't think the issue is the same with the electronic shutter. However, unless you need blazing speed or no shutter noise at all, I don't use the electronic shutter since it only gives you a 12-bit sample, vs. 14-bit with the other shutter modes, which effects your image dynamic range - which is important to me. As with the other two, my understanding is that at slow shutter speed, up to maybe 1/250, you should use EFCS, because there is less mechanical vibration introduced that can effect the IQ, especially at the lower end, even with IS. However, at high speeds, you should use the mechanical shutter because the EFCS can spoil bokeh - not completely sure why but that's what I've read. I suspect that these differences are not huge in any regard, but if you're trying to maximize your IQ, that setup is what I've read. I use my R5 that way and have always been happy with the results.

Looked back at your two previous 'New To Raw' postings... What I'm about to say may --or probably won't-- be of use to you. Nevertheless....

In this present posting, what --really-- have you gained by shooting in RAW? Granted, you were able (?) to 'lift' the shadows somewhat, you (presumably?) tamed the heavily saturated blues, greens and oranges a bit, and you were able (?) to recover the slightest bit of texture in what I'd bet were the overexposed highlights (the whites) in the roof and sun-side of the birdhouse. I expect much the same could've been accomplished with your SOOC .jpg, which essentially means that the RAW version netted you little more --in this instance-- than a larger file with greater bit depth to 'work with' (before it had been 'finalized' and reduced to the web-friendly 8 bit jpg you've posted), but with no ostensible, additional --real gain.

I don't use the software you (previously) mentioned you use, so I don't know whether or not that has any way to address chromatic aberration. What I do know, however, is that CA and/or the use of a wide open aperture has nothing whatsoever to do with whatever 'remedies' you can or cannot accomplish in having a RAW file to work with as opposed to having a .jpg file to start with. Depth of field is depth of field, and over exposure is over exposure, plain and simple.

Shooting in RAW allows for greater possibilities in bringing up shadow areas and for decreasing highlight values --as well as myriad other possibilities in the adjusting of hues and saturations and more, and there are a wide variety of ways to effect each or any of these, with some being better and others being otherwise. It's extremely difficult to describe, but the best I can put it is that with experience, the RAW shooter comes to learn how far the extremes can be pushed. And sometimes extremes are best accomplished with camera and/or lens settings, while other times they're not extremes at all, and are easily accomplished with software.

Much of this is seeing the possibilities before you ever point the camera.