plucas

A lot of this is due to 32bit float color space in NLEs. As long as the 8bit has enough to not have posterization the 32bit float will likely be able to fill in any gaps as the image is pushed hard. Grading is much easier for math to fill in gaps than say upscaling an image.
In the case of upscaling new pixels can be averaged but averaging doesn't work for fine details like a hair. Grading however we are trying to prevent posterizing.  That is done through smooth gradients.  Sometimes averaging surrounding values does perfectly.
For example if you have a color of value 200 and another value of 250 its easy in grading to averaging an in between value of 225 which still creates a nice smooth gradient.
Where 10bit is important is making sure the shot is captured well the first time.  Once you have posterization it will always be there and no 32bit float processing can magically make it go away. Visually ion the shot has no posterizing than no matter how hard it is pushed it likely never will have any or pushing the 10bit would show just as much. Thats why 32bit float was created.
10bit is a lot like 32 bit audio or 16 stops of DR that are graded down to 10 stops.  We record more so we have it and can better manipulate it.  Most of the shots above likely would have still looked good with 6 bits. You need a very long and complex gradient to break 8bit.  It can and does happen.  The more noise the camera has the less it will happen because of dithering. I think this is partially why Sony always had such a high base ISO for log.
Finally 10bit never promised to have better color, more dynamic range or less compression artifacts. Thats not what bit depth does.  Its all just about how many different color samples can be used across the image. The single and only real side effect is posterizing. Many computer monitors at one point were only 6 bit panels even if they claimed 8bit.  Most never really noticed unless they did something like use the gradient tool in Photoshop to span a full 1920 wide image. In the case of the clear blue sky image in the article that wasn't even a difficult gradient. Most of the sky was a similar shade of blue. To break 8bit you need to create a gradient going from 0 blue to 255 blue across the full 3840 pixels for 4k video. That means there is a unique blue sample every 15 pixels if you create a gradient like that. So your sky needs to go from black on one end of the screen to bright blue on the other side. Not always realistic but you can shoot Skys around dusk and dawn that spread the values out a lot more than mid day. By comparison 10bit has a unique blue color sample every 3.75 pixels for UHD video.
It doesn't even have to be something that covers the full screen.  If you have a gradient over 100 pixels from 200 blue to 205 blue that still means a new blue sample every 20 pixels.  Even though the screen area is very small. I develop mobile apps and when I add a gradient I run into the same problem trying to do a subtle gradient across something like a button. The gradient needs enough range to cover the area of pixels or it will look steppy. 10bit and higher is a safety net or guarantee to likely never have any kind of posterizing. In the professional world thats important and nobody wants surprises after the shoot is done.

While a bold statement, its 8K RAW certainly can punch above its weight class, so to speak. Pretty good for a non-video 8K video camera that people aren't buying for video...🤔

Wow.  I'm a goof.
After 3 days and like 6 visits into Premiere, I finally clicked on the correct source tab!  Damn this tiny m1 Mac screen!
If you click on Effect Controls tab, you then have to click on the Source tab nested under that (rather than the source tab at the same level as Effect Controls).  Whew!  Now I have the ability adjust Color Temp, Tint, Exposure, Color Space and Gamma as if I were doing it in camera!!!
Too bad Premiere is the slowest piece of software on Earth.  But, beggars can't be choosers.

I'd be interested to know if it continues to work well and reliably. The Kingston cards are super cheap even up to 256GB. The maker says they're suitable for 4K video capture too.

its working....

AWB-White works in Clog. I'm just saying if you have to use kelvin or custom you may wanna help skin tones by going Neutral in Clog.

@plucas : I just tried that exact test and can confirm similar findings: EOS Original  log matrix has the yellow cast while Neutral remains more faithful. Doesn't really matter what WB settings you are in.

Going to add the 1D X Mark III to the mix as well.
Not much to shoot and little colour in Berlin at the moment.
Not feeling inspired but will get on with it during the week probably.

You can use more lens, tamron 24-70 g2, canon EF 35 1.4, 16-35 2.8 III tested myself.
i think can use any EF lens...
great image, bit heavy and bulky..
 

Canon are known to recycle old chips, as seen with the EOS R (5Div sensor), RP (6Dii sensor), and the upcoming C50 (C200 sensor), so why not an RC that pairs the 1DC sensor and a Digic X processor, shoots oversampled 4K 60, and adds peaking and pixel remapping - sub-$15K?

Every time I look at R5/R6 footage, it looks "different" to the 1DC. Perhaps the aim is no longer to replicate the rougher or "textured" look of analogue film to quite the same extent.
I thought I read somewhere on these boards that the 1DC used an outmoded Rec601 colour space too?

I decided to take another look at the Canon 1D X Mark III - giving it a second chance in the post EOS R5 and R6 world.
New blog post:
https://www.eoshd.com/news/canon-1d-x-mark-iii-revisited/

@plucas : Yes I use AWB, AF & maybe even Auto-ISO for run & gun shooting on mirrorless. For more narrative work or higher-end projects in controlled environments, I'll usually switch to a cine cam with all proper manual settings. So it's not so much about the year we're in but really what the budget/project requires. 😉 
As for the Canon colours, in my humble opinion, the R5/R6 have the best IQ yet on a Canon. The oversampling,10-bit 4:2:2 and low-light capability on the R6 just gives an outstanding image and color. It definitely has the "Canon" colours but with every generation sensor, they are tweaked. The biggest gripe in my early tests was that warm yellow tint but since I have the AWB set to white priority I'm getting perfect colors.
@ade towell The FHD IQ is the best I've seen on recent Canons. It almost feels supersampled. On my 5K iMac Prothe FHD looks so sharp I sometimes have to double check the resolution settings. So yeah, very impressed with the FHD which is definitely not Canon soft HD.
I can also add that the R6 has really good low-light capabilities and the noise is fine grain like which gives it more filmic quality than the usual horrible banding of some Canon sensors.

@plucas: I found an easier method: hit info in AWB settings and switch from default ambient to white priority mode. this eliminates the warm tint under tungsten lighting.
I picked up an R6 by the way, and so far so good! really impressed by the IQ.

Let's find out...

I have a 1DC and an R5.  To my eyes the R5 is the image that is closest to 1DC of all the Canon cameras I have used (that would include the C100 II, C200, C300 I and II, XC10,  1DX II, 5D II-III-IV and the R).  In “EOS Original” it is very, very close, although I think reds are handled slightly differently.  I have an irrational reverence for my 1DC even though its a 2012 camera.  It was the camera I compared all others against. So when I say the R5 is the closest I mean that as high praise.  And frankly the R5’s 8k RAW and 4K is superior to the 1DC.
I am not super technical  on the color front but to me there was a clear shift in Canon colors somewhere around 2013-2015  (ie 5D III, C100 Mark II and 1DC are prior to this shift and 5D IV,  C200,  1DX Mark II and R are after this shift and they feel different).  The neutral/ eos original matrix didn’t seem to completely even out those differences either to my eyes in the later cameras. For some reason the R5 feels more like a reversion to the older color but in slightly more mature form (and 10 bit definitely helps).   I know some people propose the C70 as the 1DC successor and that may true from a C-line hybrid form factor perspective, but the colors and image seem very different .

5.1K Canon RAW Light would be welcome for the crop mode, especially in 50/60p.

Just turn the color matrix in the log settings to "EOS Original".
As per Canon's own R5 manual: "EOS Original reproduces colors equivalent to those of the EOS-1D C."
How true in practice it is, I don't have a 1DC to test. Maybe @Dave Maze is interested in looking into this?

I bought an Atomos Ninja external recorder after reading a good deal on the internet, and watching a ton of YouTube videos that tell why 10-bit color depth is superior to 8-bit, how it makes a huge difference during color grading, etc. In theory, 10-bit gives each pixel the ability to pick from over 1 billion shades of color; compared to 16 million shades offered by 8-bit. This allows for smoother color gradations, avoids banding, etc. I got that part. But what about in reality? Does it make a noticeable difference?

I searched everywhere, for a side-by-side comparison of the same subject shot on 8-bit 4:2:0 internal vs 10-bit 4:2:2 external. I found none. Everybody explained why 10-bit is great, but offered no visual proof. At least nothing my eyes could spot.  

So I made these comparison tests myself, after getting the Atomos Ninja. Same test subject. Filmed using EOS-R. Three clips: 8-bit 4:2:0 internal H.264; 8-bit 4:2:2 ProRes external; 10-bit 4:2:2 ProRes external. All are 4K. All are CLOG.

On the first look, there's one obvious difference. 8-bit 4:2:0 CLOG internal footage looked noticeably flatter than the external CLOG footage (both 8-bit and 10-bit). I don't know if that's a good thing or bad. I'd expect CLOG to be quite flat. Why is the external recorded footage less flat? Is the ProRes codec used by Atomos Ninja playing with the contrast levels before recording it? Internal 8-bit CLOG recording, when viewed through waveform monitor, showed more room for brightness and darkness adjustments before clipping - compared to the external recordings! Isn't it supposed to be the other way!?! 

Other than that difference in flatness, I can't find anything else. 10-bit or 8-bit, both externally recorded clips didn't give me any additional leg room while color grading - compared to the 8-bit internal clip. 

What more, 8-bit and 10-bit external recordings looked exactly the same untouched, as well as after applying the same grades. No matter how hard I tried to look (zooming in, for instance), I can't find a difference. It may have to do with ProRes encoding everything as 10-bit 4:2:2 irrespective of the source bit depth. It is said that extreme color grading breaks apart 8-bit while 10-bit holds pretty good. This argument is backed by a strong theory. But if I can't see how much more better 10-bit is than 8-bit, what's the point with these external recorders? Is Atomos Nijna merely an overpriced monitor? (It does a good a job of that, for sure).
And, assuming 10-bit makes color graded videos have less artifacts, what happens when the edited video is exported using an 8-bit codec, and viewed on an 8-bit monitor?  

There may be rare cases where 10-bit is useful. But for most scenarios, I started to believe 10-bit isn't any better than 8-bit.  

What am I missing? I'd be glad if somebody could prove me wrong and confirm that 10-bit is worth it.

Yes we use it to match with EOS R and C300 c-log 1 — it works well. The M50 dynamic range is limited but Andrew’s profile helps squeeze the most out of it. Grades well.

C70 screengrab from FB group (Andrzej Fryda).  Canon colour is magic source.

When they add the lower bitrate Canon RAW Lite to the R5, it would be great if they added it for the APSC mode (5.1K) and up to 60p. 

When they add the lower bitrate Canon RAW Lite to the R5, it would be great if they added it for the APSC mode (5.1K) and up to 60p. 

When they add the lower bitrate Canon RAW Lite to the R5, it would be great if they added it for the APSC mode (5.1K) and up to 60p. 

In defense of the C200, it also introduced 4K60p, internal RAW recording, and Touch DPAF... amongst a host of other features, IO, media and ergonomic enhancements .
It was a lot more than just a C100 with 4K. Aside from 10-bit codec, it actually did more than the at the time flagship C300 mk2!
And that’s the funny thing with Canon. Lower end models often have better features than flagship models but always have the infamous cripple hammer on some crucial aspect..