SRV1981

Clearly great points. But I think it’s still missing the mark, given that the user in my scenario wants a quick turn around in many lighting conditions outside of our control what sensors currently produce an image you love with minimal effort. 
 
the gx85 image is lovely but also the kids skin looks deathly anemic. Another sensor and processor would.l render that scene differently.  That’s the conversation 

I debated between the two last year and went with the C70.  It's my go-to A camera these days with the R5 as B camera.  Without watching that video, I'd guess that the image on the right is the C70 (more highlight and shadow detail).

I'm sure I posted it back then too. ML Raw is easy on the 5D3 due to dual card slots and its stability.
I'm sure the FX3 and R5C could get close... minus the 14bit color... but they're $3500 cameras and I already own the 5D3. 

I remember this ! it was posted here years ago! I remember trying ML and was blown away how good it looked but how hard it was to use. I think the fx3/r5c can give those looks now. 

And I'd be remiss if I didn't post this video from a British filmmaker named Paul Cook. It was the video that made me buy my 5D3 and install ML Raw on it and never look back. After 7 years, I'm still chasing what he was able to capture in an afternoon...
 

The first few scenes on the train felt like a movie. Loved it! In another thread I bumped from 2015 where folks discussed cameras and color, as is my goal, some commented that as brands have moved to mirrorless they’re chasing resolution and in doing so neglecting color and overall image. Something to the effect that chasing greens versus other colors, has had a negative impact on the way color is rendered and that’s 9 years ago. Worth a review that thread. 
 
I originally curious about modern cameras that produce that movie look in the first video without lighting makeup etc. the skin tones and overall look felt less digital and more movie like. That’s what I was getting at with what brands are trying to achieve that ? What models most of us can purchase today gets us to that. 

When I did the music video for that band a couple of months ago - it was a nightmare, but at the same time had me thinking - this just feels so right and so much what I want to spend my time doing. If only I didn't have to make a living!

Script and partial shortlist written. Ready for action tomorrow night when wife is out, so hopefully no interruptions!

I agree. His Sony work does not respond to me, neither in the edit, premise, lengthyness, choice of focal lengths, camera movement nor framing nor color palette and contrast. @mercer That Sigma 30mm is a thing I had been keeping in my mind. I am a sucker for 28mm on S35. Kendys Canon work was magic, his Sony uploads on his channel are video imo. Besides colour, movement, framing and lensing are not in the same league as his Canon library imho. I can relate to the impact of a camera on freewheeling video essay work. I still hold a G70 in high regard for the mojo it has in HD 24p. The only two pieces I shot with it are still oozing color magic and forced me to design my shots and movements instead of gimbleing through the world rather effortlessly. No effort means no magic in most of the instances.

Whenever I start thinking about the beginning of the DSLR revolution or the Digital Revolution, I take my own advice and go back to look at some old videos that I love from those forgotten cameras.
This first round of films, from Kendy Ty and his t2i, I have linked to countless times, years ago, but I think they could be helpful or relevant to the OP's topic...
If I remember correctly, he used the t2i and the old Sigma 30mm 1.4. I believe he even created his own picture profile, in camera, for his earlier films.
Like so many others, he eventually moved onto a Sony 4K camera, but many people commented they preferred the look from his trusty, old t2i.
If there's a lesson here, it's simple... sometimes less is more. Sometimes the tool that gets the job done and is simple to work with, is better than wading through the minutiae of features and tech finding the best camera.

Didn't know that was in B&W. Thanks for the heads up. I adore B&W, so much so that I've been testing my FP in 4K 8bit mode for the sole purpose of having a smaller set up for a B&W film. 

It’s not just because the B&W makes it ‘arty’.
The script is great, taking what was originally a book, then a French film, then the well known Matt Damon movie and now an 8x near 1 hour episode series.
The acting is great.
The cinematography IMO is superb.
I have zero criticisms of it and that is rare for me.

Instead, people respond to posts that weren't written and proselytize and talk down.  It's pretty pathetic.   

Literally a non-controversial, non-trolling, basic question that you can partake in politely or not. 

Not really, I've asked basic questions for discussion purposes but the elitism and condescension as your post demonstrates is strong here - i'd rather just find a place with more amateur enthusiasts rather than certain folks who think highly of themselves

I highly recommend going to the source if you're interested in going deeper, here are a couple of interviews with Jill on Joker that I found to be fascinating and thought-provoking:
...and this interview with Jill on John Wick and other films where they even talk about specific shots etc:
Lots of info out there if you search and go looking for it 🙂 

From a presentation I watched from Alister Chapman I got to understand - not fully - a few things about colour science, logs, sensor, etc. with my own take on it since he wasn't talking about this specifically. He basically explained the differences between broadcast standard, how to use the extra stops you get in these cameras and how log works.
I think that the sensor itself is less important to the discussion because that's just a workspace, two manufacturers or more can use the same sensor and have very different results in the end. Colour science does matter, I can't agree with those that say like "it doesn't, you just have to grade better", that makes zero sense.
Actually in the presentation Chapman said something similar to Andrew's theory, Sony is an engineer company and they make it so you can get the most color gamut possible, therefore, they get more green as well, which not necessarity means it will make better images. But that's just one step, the other one is how you use it. He also talked about how the green end up shifting to fit the workable color gamut and he even explained the difference between S-log 2 and S-log 3 in more details and why S-log 2 is more complicated to grade or why you record S-log exposing to the right, about 60% zebra.
When you create a log or a picture profile, cine gamma, etc. that's when you start to use the information you have from the sensor and in this case, simply showing all the color gamut is not really the best option and that's when colour science comes. I don't know if I would use the word artistic here, but more like perception, so making the data you get into something that looks more natural to our perception does make a lot of difference, even more because during color grading you will be doing something similar.
But let's say that after the data you get, you make something unbalanced because you wanted to show all the color gamut possible, then it will be much harder to get a more natural look since you will be getting more green and depending on several factors like color space, compression, etc. you might not be able to get what you would had you created a more balanced log with a better colour science.
So basically with a better colour science you make a better use of the data you can get from the sensor, it doesn't necessarily mean showing more colors or even scientifically accurate colors. Of course that also means it's subjective as well and there is no a right and worng exactly, but overall, when the difference is notable you can say that one colour science is indeed better than the other and when it's closer, then it becomes more of a personal preference.
That's probably also why you have a big difference between measurements of stops, color gamut, etc. and practical, real life aplication because measurements don't really tell how you use it and that's also why those DxO ratings don't mean one camera is better than the other.
-
As for why the S-log 2 is harder to grade, in simpler words it's something like it's more curved than S-log 3. When you grade usually you will do it based on that middle and the S-log 3 from that part and above is more like a line and less like a curve, so when you grade it up or down, it's more uniform. With the S-log 2 you have to basically grade the shadows, middle and highlights separedly because if you do based on any of these 3 parts, the value you add or substract will be different in the other section, so it's not uniform.
That also matches the info I got watching a Sony guys talking about S-log 2 S-log 3. He said that S-log 3 is easier to grade and that S-log 2 is better for highlights while S-log 3 is better for shadows and if you look at the curves you can understand why, S-log 2 has more values for highlights while the S-log 3 has more values for shadows and mid tones. I think that "better" is not really the word, it's more like more nuances. Chapman also talked that in 8-bit codecs if you really want more information, you better off with S-log 2, if you want something easier to grade you can go to the others gamma curves. He explained why in low light you DON'T USE S-log at all, which totally makes sense, unless you are at night but filming a lot of light, recording in S-log will only make it noisier because although you will be getting more data overall, in the areas that matter it's the opposite, making is much noisier and that's also why S-log is no good for chromakey as well.

good point ! That would make sense as I have seen in an interview a samsung rep saying that you can play the nx1 h.265 files on their tv's. Could be why they chose h.265 & their vivid color science

Back to the original subject of the thread: Andrew has a point that Canon cameras produce more pleasing/aesthetically appealing color than Sony (and Panasonic and Samsung, for that matter). But I don't believe that this has to do anything with sensor tech respectively color gamuts. After all, Nikon produces pleasing color, too, but uses Sony sensors.
We shouldn't forget that 8bit video - i.e. the signal recorded by Sony A7 cameras, most Canon C-series cameras, Samsung NX1 and Panasonic GH4 internally - represents only a fraction of the sensor's color information. In the case of 14bit sensor signals, 8bit video only contains 1/64th or 1.5% of the original color information, in case of 12bit sensor signals, only 1/16th or 6.2%. (You might argue that debayering isn't factored in here for the 12/14 bit signal, but on the other hand, 4:2:0 chroma subsampling isn't factored in for the 8bit signal either.) So it's all about which choices the jpeg/mpeg engine of the camera makes: which 98.5%/93.8% of colors it will throw away and which it will keep.
Cameras by consumer electronic manufacturers seem to be biased towards keeping a lot of green channel information because it will result in images that the untrained eye will perceive as sharper/more detailed. (The human eye can see greens better than other colors, a product of evolution and the age where hunters and gatherers need to spot prey or enemies in the woods.) It's probably the color science equivalent of edge sharpening, chroma oversaturation and increased micro contrast that is commonly used in consumer/amateur cameras to make images "pop" and appeal to the average consumers.
We shouldn't forget that Sony, Panasonic and (still) Samsung produce affordable consumer 4k cameras to boost sales of their 4k flatscreen TVs. I wouldn't be surprised if their color sciences is optimized for those TVs rather than for professional or cinematic/photographic video production.

true, and after working extensively with the original A7s, Red raw and now the Canon 1DC I can confirm that they all need skilful tweaking straight out of the camera. 
The difference for me has been that with Canon and Red files the first hour or so of grading is correcting the colour (removing weird casts, exposure, getting skin in the right area, making it look natural) and then I can go onto working the general look and feel. Where as with Sony - in any colour profile you choose - the first stage of 'fixing' the image so that it looks natural never really ends. I find it very hard to ever reach a point of having a natural look I'm satisfied with, and then any additional change I make to the image tends to knock all my previous work out of whack. With the Canon files, once I've got it to a natural, neutral point, further creative grading seems to go much smoother and doesn't stray out of a natural getting image as much.
What I'm basically saying is that in my workflow Sony A7s footage requires me to constantly wrestle with the image to stop people looking like aliens or zombies, whereas in Canon footage I can push and pull the image much further while people tend to remain looking like people.
As a working pro those hours saved and reduced stress is hard to put a value on.
as an idiot, I greatly appreciate this!

The color is not a physical property of any object, it is only subjective to our mind. What we are used to. There is zero science to your claims that Canon has "better" colors, there is no "better" color. A certain color you might find pleasing, is disgusting to others. Just as stated here:
On the other there are also articles saying the opposite, like this one : http://web.mit.edu/abyrne/www/ColorRealism.html, but as they say it works only to a certain degree. 
However it is important to note the difficulty of creating a nice look with the sony's S Log compared to baked colors of Canon straight out of camera. 
Personally, I don't care if canon has almighty color, if those grandpas cannot give me simple stuff like focus peeking or articulated screen (what is the almighty color shot to me if it is not in focus and my back is crying in pain) to more sophisticated stuff such as slow mo, better DR, better sensor etc. etc. etc. If only we could combine best of both worlds
 

To answer the question in the article: No, not really. Canon's color space is just more idiot-proof than Sony's. 

To be fair, I vaguely remember the OP stating at some point that he/she likes to have discussions about gear. And let's be honest, this forum is primarily a gear forum. Perhaps the OP should mention that this discussion isn't necessarily about a decision he's currently planning on making and instead it's about learning and gathering information.
With that said, @kye has a fair point. These cameras are only tools for creative endeavors. These cameras will not make the film or  color grade your film or make your film good. At the end of the day, story is king.
I would suggest to the OP that they take some time and go back and look what people were creating when the DSLR revolution began. Look at t2i and GH2 videos to see what was possible with limited resolution, DR and resources.

I just realized - I did come to the wrong forum. I just assumed this was a wider community than what actually is. Many view themselves as filmmakers. I do not, I’m sure there’s other forums/places to chat just about equipment etc and not ruffle weathers of those who see themselves as “filmmakers”. 

Same! The color really brought us into a different/alternate universe!