SRV1981

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

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”. 

Actually unreservedly loved it. I'm finding that I'm gradually getting further and further away from preferring verite/realistic looks and getting into the wilder end of things!

I watched this yesterday and it inspired me to watch the first film (only 5 years late!). It's unusual to see Waqas quite so excited about something but it was an excellent view into the art, rather than the technique, in top-end colour grading.

If you're looking for SOOC color, you probably want a decent amount of SOOC noise reduction.
If you're working on a project which will have reasonable post-production work done, you want the least (or no) noise reduction in camera.  Tools like the denoiser in Resolve, Neat Video, and Topaz Video AI give a better result as well as giving you a lot more control of the trade-offs of noise vs lost details and plastic/wax skin.

Below is an approximate comparison of transfer curve for various Log and Sony's three versions of HLG.
From the Bolex PDF above:

The three versions of HLG that Sony cameras support (from https://xtremestuff.net/sony-and-hybrid-log-gamma-hlg/ ) - HLG3 (upper curve) is the closest to the Rec. 2100 standard :

A chart of various Log formats from https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64243940 (note the 3 EV spread in the high EV limit between the various curves). The highest DR curves look to be C-Log2, S-Log3 and V-Log - but of course they do that by being flatter in the important mid-range area i.e. fewer levels per EV, increasing the chance of banding if pushed too far in post. Note this chart is -10 to +10 EV vs. IRE 0 to 110%, the other two are -8 to +8 EV vs. 10-bit digital code values.

...or you could just create your own flat/pseudo log transfer characteristic in-camera by adjusting a standard picture profile (e.g. contrast, saturation, highlight/shadow curves) to give you a compromise SOOC/gradable format that fits your needs?

If you want useable SOOC video that looks reasonable when played directly, but which has high DR for grading if you want to, you could try shooting in 10-bit HLG?
It's a compromise format that is designed to provide decent looking video on non-HDR displays, and full HDR on HDR-capable displays - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_log–gamma . Note it uses Rec. 2020 colour space/gamut, so the colours will be distorted to some extent on a Rec. 709 display.
KnightsFan said: 
...and I've also tried grading HLG (from my OM-1) and found it OK.
I think Log is better for grading (than HLG), but Log is not very usable as SOOC video (unless you really like watching low-contrast/saturation video!).

For me to upgrade.....

Must have:
8k 60 RAW with AF and Aperture control using the internal battery
Waveform while recording
No time limits
Better IBIS for video
Face AF within an AF Zone like the R3
 
Nice to have:
Zoom-in while video playback or at least when paused on a frame... why does no C line nor R line have it?!?
LUT applied on video playback
Better DR
Better RS
Peaking while in AF mode
Sharper 4k 120
4k 120 with audio
Less lag wifi video transmission
Easier phone-camera connection.... it is a mess at the moment they should copy insta360 approach that always work.


I'm dreaming:
Dual CFExpress
Two USB-C ports
USB-C no lag video to iPhone so can be used as a screen without additional HW that make no sense...
Low latency bluetooth audio 
Full HDMI port
32 bit float audio

Wireless mic support (RODE or DJI or your Canon developed transmitter)

Dual tripod socket, this is so basic not sure why no camera manufactured do this.

4k 240

I've never used AF. Most shoots there are 2 people on camera, so someone pulls focus with a wireless unit. And I can pull focus for myself if not.
Any log format that is supported by Resolve's color is ideal. I haven't used everything out there so I'm not going to try to give brand generalizations. Honestly the NX1 was the camera that gave me the best results SOOC, but I can't recommend a discontinued series from 10 years ago. The S5 works really well for me now. The XT3 was great, but if I recall correctly there were issues with FLog in Resolve for a while, so I almost always used HLG and was happy with it.
I haven't shot with any modern blackmagic cameras, but I from what I see in other people's footage, they have the best color with their end-to-end color management. Again, that's not personal experience.
If you need to get good Rec709 color SOOC I'm not the best reference, as everything I've ever shot has had time for coloring.
Another factor that maybe I should state explicitly is that Resolve is the only color software that I like. Assuming you're using a decently nice camera with color management, good software will speed up the color process more than the difference between Sony FX6 and Canon C70.

Yes, 10 bit log is extremely flexible, so you can get similar color from most modern cameras. I say modern because sensors are better now than they used to be.
My one extra note is that I find that the most important thing is to nail your white balance. Many cameras that I have used look way better if you manually set them to a white balance setting, rather than balance to a card. My Panasonic S5 in particular looks terrible balanced to a card. So I always shoot 5600K and correct it later. If you do correct it in post, it's best to use color management and do the corrections in linear gamma. If I recall, my old NX1 actually looked great balanced to a the same white card. So it definitely varies by camera.
I love Fuji's color. I'm not overjoyed by Panasonic's SOOC Rec709 (but am happy with VLog when I have at least 2 minutes to color it). But in a broad sense and with possible exceptions, I am happy with any camera made after 2018 that cost more than $2k at launch. I really disliked older Sonys and Panasonics, but that is no longer true.
Speaking specifically about color, being able to use Resolve color management is huge. It is faster and better than using LUTs to move between color spaces. Other than that, the only real consideration is the time/quality ratio. How fast can I get to the image I want, or, on the other end, how fast can I get to an image that can be turned in by the deadline. Like you mentioned in your first sentence, images can be made similar, but the question is how quickly.
Speaking about the entire system, compatibility is my #1 concern. Lenses, batteries, audio, rigs--these all have to work together. I've put a lot of effort into things like "put a right angle XLR on the bottom of a boom pole so that it can be set down without damaging the cable." All my lenses are EF. All of them have 77mm filter threads. That sort of thing matters a lot.
Typically, I will do plenty of tests ahead of time. I'll build color nodes in Resolve before the project begins, so I know what settings to use on set, and roughly what I'll do in post. If you have that kind of preparation, the camera used does not matter as much.
I think 10 years ago, Canon reigned. The 5D3 was much better than Panasonics and Sonys back then. Nowadays I don't think it holds anymore. But that's all subjective.

If the R5 II is exactly like the R5, but with better cooling and dynamic range (dare we dream of DGO?) and it's about the same price, I will almost certainly trade in my R5 toward one.  I'd ask for timecode too, but I'm sure they'll hold that out for the R5C II.

In my experience, the internet has a very skewed view of which brands offer the best colour science.
Millions of folks on the internet will tell you that Canon has the best colour, and recently Fuji is in the game with their film emulation presets, but I think this is just confirmation bias in action.
All manufacturers have very high quality colour.
Even Sony, who used to have the most "accurate" colour and looked very unappealing, have turned it around and now have pretty nice colour.
The other great myth is that great colour comes from the camera, it doesn't.
Great colour comes from production design, lighting, and colour grading.
Here is a thread where I show that it's the work in post that makes the images pop.
After reading your recent posts and threads about one aspect of cameras or other, I have some bad news for you...  you can't buy good images.
Good images come from skill, not equipment.  Great images come from skill and large amounts of hard work.

I suggest you start with the finished edit and work backwards.  Your end goal is to create a certain type of content with a certain type of look.  This will best be achieved using a certain type of shooting and a certain type of equipment that makes this easier and faster.  Then look at options for lenses across the crop-factors, then choose your format/sensor-size, then the camera body.

There is no such rule either way.

There's nothing wrong with baking in a LUT if that fits your goals.

If you're handing off the footage to someone else to color/grade, they might resent you for it, though.  As long as that isn't the case, the only thing that's really "wrong" is failing to get the shot/look that you wanted.

I wouldn’t even be slightly concerned about any such minor discrepancies.
Yes, there is getting it right in camera, ie, technique (including lighting) and there is bound to be some fiddling in post to ‘equalise’ the output between any combo of bodies and lenses etc.
Just bring some drone footage into the mix and there’s something else to ‘equalize’.
I’d be far more concerned with how the tools feel to work with; weight, ergos etc.
Sony, Nikon, Lumix, Canon…it’s not difficult to match it, never mind keeping it in brand.
Unless you tell folks or ask, no one ever knows what you shot it on.
And outside of nerds like us, no one cares!

If you prefer the 'look' from a particular camera, then I guess you should buy that one...
But as soon as you take it outdoors under a broken cloudy sky and press the record button, the angle, intensity and colour of the ambient light will be constantly changing, giving you an ever changing palette of 'looks' that you didn't ask for... which as Kye suggested above you'll have to adjust for in post anyway to get a cohesive 'look'.
(I was once on the top of a mountain pass, looking down a wide valley, in the aftermath of a storm the day before. The fast moving thick clouds meant it would change from bright sunshine to deep shadow every few seconds. It produced very dramatic lighting - and some nice stills and video - but setting camera exposure settings was almost a lottery...)

But objects in the footage from both cameras are the same size. If one camera is APS-C and the other is full-frame, and they were using the same lenses, those objects would not be the same size. So maybe the differences you're seeing are due to different lenses being used (or the same zoom lens on both cameras but at different focal lengths), or something was done in post. The person who did this comparison is introducing too many variables for it to be an informative test.

Without watching the videos and just looking at the screenshots, it looks like the ZV-E1 was exposed about 2/3 stop brighter than the FX30.  Assuming that it's 10-bit footage with a decent codec, you will drag a single slider slightly to the right in post and the images will look much more similar.
It is likely that the ZV-E1 has slightly more DR than the FX30 (full frame vs aps-c of a similar generation).  In the relatively low-contrast scene that's shown, if the exposure is within a stop or so of (what I think of as) correct, you would never know or care.

We all know that cameras produce (sometimes dramatically) different images and image quality, and yet we also know that within a given price range those same cameras typically use the same sensors from Sony and are recording to the same codecs in basically the same bitrates.  It's maddening!
So, WTF is going on?  
Well, I just came upon this talk below, which goes through and demonstrates some of the inner workings in greater detail than I had previously seen:
It's long, but here's my notes...
Firstly, how you de-mosaic / de-bayer the image really matters, with some algorithms being higher quality and require higher processing power:
(Click on the images to zoom in - quality isn't the best but the effects are visible)


If you're not shooting RAW then this will be done in-camera, and if your manufacturer skimped on the processor they put in there, this will be happening to your footage.
If the camera is scaling the image, then the quality of this matters too:

and if the scaling even gets done in the wrong colour space then it can really screw things up:

There's more discussions in there, especially around colour science which has been discussed to death, but I thought these might be illuminating as it's not something we get to see that much because it's buried in the camera and typically it's not something we can easily play with in the NLE.
All these add up to a fundamental principle that I have been gradually gravitating towards.
If you're shooting non-RAW then shoot in the highest resolution you can shoot in, and just un-sharpen (blur) the image in post.
Shooting in the highest resolution means that your camera will be doing the least downscaling (or none), and most glitches and bad processing will be at the pixel-level, which means that the higher the resolution the smaller those glitches and errors compared to the size of the image, and un-sharpening de-emphasises these in the footage.  
You might notice that all of these shortcomings make the footage sharper, not duller, so the errors have made your footage sharp but in a way that it never was - it's fictional sharpness.
Also, the more modern displays are also themselves becoming sharper, so it's no wonder that footage all now looks like those glitch websites from the late 90s that were trying to be cool but looked like a graphic designer threw up into them...

FilmLight (who make BaseLight which is the Resolve competitor that costs as much as a house) seem to be on a mission to get deeper into the image and bring along the industry on that journey, and I'm really appreciative of their efforts as they're providing more insight into things we can do to get better images and get more value from our limited budgets.

Those are all absolutely KILLER deals...  well done!!

I buy used all the time. Greatest deal were two LX10, a bit bumped up but perfectly usuable, for 120 Euro, three years ago, from a youtuber with 150.000 subs. One battery only though.:) Another great deal was an og pocket two years ago or so, with the 20mm 1.7 MK II for 200 or 250 Euro. Last summer I got a Lumix G2 and a G3, together for less than 30 Euro. This year no purchase yet, as planned to stay away from gas this year and as stated in another thread.:)

My mileage has not varied from this.
I think once, max twice in about the same time period so for me, extended warranties would have cost 10x if not 20x as much.
Otherwise I do try and purchase used if I can, but only from dealers ie, not places like eBay. Unless it’s some older ‘vintage’ lens type stuff when OK, I have taken a punt.
MPB is the only real place in Europe for used (mainstream) kit.

B&H, Adorama & MPB have all served me well when buying used. I bought my S5iix new, but that was because it was on sale and the used price wasn't much lower. If it's only $100 or $200 cheaper then it really might be worth getting it new instead, but I generally buy cameras that are a couple years old which is where you'll find bargains. 
You're probably going to get the same overheating on a used camera as you will on a new one, assuming the camera you're getting has overheating issues to begin with. The same applies for most issues a camera may have. 
Third party warranties aren't a terrible idea. I get extended warranties if they're available for any expensive purchase I make. For me that's usually anything over $1000, though what is and isn't expensive varies per person. I film a lot of pro-wrestling, so the thought of having my brand new $2,000 camera and $1,000+ lens damaged and being SOL because I didn't spend a little more on the extended warranty gives me nightmares. Better to be safe than sorry, I say.