SRV1981

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!

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.