ghostwind

Your questions have already been answered here. You're simply just trolling at this point, and not very well at that. Not sure what exactly is is you ARE looking for..

You do realize technology matters? You do realize different camera produce differences in image that are pleasing to some and not others? Do you realize the original thread is about what camera you prefer to get the closest to your goal image with minimal work? Are you aware 99% of responses didn’t address that? Should I wear makeup?

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 

One of the reasons that people are getting frustrated is that you're "asking basic questions," but then basically ignoring a lot of the answers.  It's like you keep asking what saw makes the best cabinets.  When people tell you that you need more than a saw, you start asking people to compare brands of saws.  
Which cameras has the best color and in-camera noise reduction?  All of them.  Also, none of them.  Go to NAB and ask 100 people on the floor.  Every one of them will be completely correct.  Every one of them will be completely incorrect.  How do you know?  Ask almost any of the others.
It is also a bit frustrating that you are asking questions that seem like you are trying to choose which camera to buy and after you receive a bunch of answers, you shift your focus and start asking again.
If you want somebody to yell at you about which camera has the best colors, go to YouTube.  There are dozens of people shouting about how the camera that they bought is the best camera ever.  Then just try to ignore the other videos from all the people saying it's the worst camera ever.  Heck, there are already dozens of videos just about the Pyxis talking about how it's the best camera released in years or the most ho-hum camera announcement so far this year.  Bonus: almost none of the people with those videos has even seen a Pyxis in person, much less actually shot with one.

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 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”. 

The answer is either putting in the time to learn colour grading, or putting in the time to earn money to buy multiples of the same camera so the image is identical.

You asked "what brands are you usually happy with color wise?"
Good colour in an image is basically skin-tones - get them right and the image is good and get them wrong and nothing else matters.
The way to get good skin tones is to film someone with the best skin tones you can find, use makeup to improve the skin-tones in your images, and to colour grade the skin-tones in post.
Great skin-tones (and great coloured images) aren't created by cameras - they're created on-set and in post.
Trying to choose the right camera to get good colour is like trying to choose the right paint and paint brushes that will make your paintings into masterpieces.  You're looking in the wrong place.

Dunno what tests those were, but I've shot in all formats on my Z9s, and N-RAW is definitely better than H265. More latitude, less/no NR, less/no sharpening, etc. Not to mention, of course, the freedom to change WB and exposure in Resolve in post.

The reality is if you lift the shadows in both Z9 and A1 "uncompressed" raw images, at base ISO, you get different results. If you do demosaicing on A1 images, and apply temporal NR, you get even more different result. If Nikon ditch the NRAW, its probably related to license costs, not the quality of the codec.

No, actually, you're right.. it's me, I'm the silly one.
I'd forgotten that the threads about industry news always devolve into everyone arguing about inconsequential rubbish that has no bearing on film-making.
Thanks for the reminder and best of luck y'all.

Dunno what tests those were, but I've shot in all formats on my Z9s, and N-RAW is definitely better than H265. More latitude, less/no NR, less/no sharpening, etc. Not to mention, of course, the freedom to change WB and exposure in Resolve in post.

True latitude tests are the best indicator. With firmware 3.0 the Z9/Z8 does peform incredibly well and like you said bests the Venice 2 which is crazy. The Venice 2 captures 16 bit linear RAW which I would imagine gives you a much beefier file to work with. That said 8.2k 12 bit RAW with that kind of latitude is more than enough for any application. 

One of the biggest draws of the Z8/Z9 for me is the NRAW, Prores RAW, Prores, and H265 options all in camera. Pretty much can fit to any workflow in any NLE without needing to transcode. 

If they actually put REDraw that would be awesome for possible compression options. 

No Opengate square aspect ratio options for anamorphic but hey you can't get everything. I appreciate Nikon's new move of not holding back. Feels like Lumix until recently where they seem to put out the same thing over and over again. 

I suggest you read the thread before posting - this is the second post from you that I've seen where you have come in half way through the conversation making comments that look a bit silly.....
https://www.eoshd.com/news/adobe-cancel-nikon-n-raw-support-is-redcode-raw-coming-to-a-mirrorless-camera-near-you/
Ah, so theoretical discussion completely divorced from reality it is then.
Well, umm..   good luck with that.

Dunno what tests those were, but I've shot in all formats on my Z9s, and N-RAW is definitely better than H265. More latitude, less/no NR, less/no sharpening, etc. Not to mention, of course, the freedom to change WB and exposure in Resolve in post.

I agree - Sony will be doing image processing before the H.265 encoding (e.g. noise suppression, de-Bayering, sharpening etc.), whereas you might expect less of that happening with N-RAW - isn't it meant to be raw sensor data, warts and all?
H.265 is a sophisticated codec, so I'm not that surprised 4:2:2 10-bit 8k video at 500Mbps from the A1 looks really good, especially on a static image like Andrew used in the N-RAW vs H.265 vs CDNG comparison article.

For comparing two different codecs, you have to use the same or similar sensors.

I'm quite interested in raw myself, though have never used it.
Not so much (or at all actually) for pure video capture and production, but rather for video capture with a view to using the material for both video production and extracting stills as if 'from a movie', ie, 100% matching other than perhaps crop.
On that basis, having tested 4k, it's not quite good enough for stills, at least not at the level I would be happy with, so 6k for me is a minimum plus shot at 50/60p because I do have a requirement for up to 50% slow mo at certain times.
Yes I know I can do the latter in post but it isn't quite the same.
Instead, I am looking for a capture that is not too hard drive heavy so something up to about 600mbs maybe (but none of this 2000mbs stuff which is waaaaay too high for me) which I can then edit into a finished production, real time and slow mo and then extract 500+ 'movie' stills from it.
And it HAS to be internal for me, or at least to a slim external SSD.
Lumix currently does not offer me this and as someone who is currently shooting video with L Mount, but stills with Nikon Z plus adapted E Mount glass, there are several directions I could go in but Nikon for me has the current best options and probably future potential.
Building up a modest set of E Mount glass means I can use this on a totally Nikon or Sony body system, but equally, I am not so heavily invested that if within L Mount, something 'internal raw 6k 50p not too heavy' comes out in the future, I could go fully back to using L for everything.
I'd like to at least explore raw though as the biggest benefit to me other than having identical matching video and stills, would be because I can then down-size my kit.
Down-size as not necessarily in terms of size of individual bodies and lenses, but number of units.
Currently using 4 but could equally use 3 but there is a very good option for 2...except *cough*, it's Canon.
I am currently most interested however with my more modest budget, in what the Nikon Z6iii is going to be, but I suspect it probably won't be 6 or 8k 50p full frame internal and if not, a single used Z9 still remains and option for 2025 with it's 8k 50p raw internal ability.

With today's news, I feel like I made the right choice going with the Z9s, not just for now, but for the future. 

I thought the same, until I tested a bit the 4.1 K (pixel skipping) of my z9 as I calculated that it was about 350 mb/s bitrate  (I dont know if it is capital M or small m), compared to about 200 mb/s the h.265. Another surprise was that it played better using Resolve than H.265. For me this has been my defacto standard for higher end work.
I must do some more test about DR etc. to know what loss compared to 8k. Which I think is just too much. If I could get a 4k or 6k raw camera, I would be super happy or with the likes of Redraw higher compression. 

With today's news, I feel like I made the right choice going with the Z9s, not just for now, but for the future. 

Gee, I hope you never discover what the sports bureaucracy in other sports get up to.... 
Name a Top 10 finisher (not just in the TdF but any Grand Tour, or heck, even any of the Classics) from that era who you're certain wasn't ever taking drugs?
I feel as a fan to be stressing and worrying over who was or wasn't is a futile exercise. Just enjoy the racing for what it is. (and got to admit, the racing during that era was a lot better!)
I never said that. 
Oh sure, and Óscar Pereiro has never had any doping allegation scandals around him! /s 😅😂🤣 If you fully believe he's totally clean then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell 😉
This proves the point about how totally different Lance Armstrong has been treated, as a scapegoat and a punching bag for the entire world's media (not just cycling media) to beat up upon. 
(just to be clear btw, I'm no great fan of Lance Armstrong specifically! In fact his existence kinda annoyed me back then, as Armstrong prevented my favorite rider from winning any more TdF titles!! If not for Lance, then I think he'd have gone on to win even more titles than Lance did. Oh well)
(also just to be clear: yes, what he did is wrong. It's wrong to dope. But when you consider the broader context, I find it impossible to get as super hyped up furiously mad about it as so many others seem to be. It's merely disappointing, not some kind of greatest scandal since Watergate) 

What high profile professional sport does not have drug taking?
The only reason cycling gets so much flack is because they're a hell of a lot more transparently open about it & the media actually talks about it.
Which it would be good if other sports & the media did this too! Had more open transparency and discussion. (for instance, have you ever heard of Mohamed Katir? Or the Chinese female distance runners of the 1990s?) 
Which is what the sport of cycling is. 
(especially in that era) 
You're proving my point here. You can't give out all the wins to anybody else but Lance Armstrong, thus it is utterly farcical to remove it from him when you've got no remotely good options whatsoever to replace him with.