Sony user here. This fag
>>4383273 is full of shit, and seems to be a schizophrenic shut in and resident troll.
I have never had color issues on any camera except for an ancient olympus with an adapted film lens that had a green cast near grass and foliage, 99% from lens fungus and old coatings. Modern lenses are always neutral. Skin tones are great on this. There are never any inherent color casts from this camera that you dont have to add yourself. It has never died in the rain. It works fine.
I have also used a pentax k3, nikon z5 and a canon r6. All for travel snapshits and family group portraits where you cant dial in an edit for just one skin type. They all do the exact same thing. They all take good looking pictures.
The people trying to convince you that sony has bad color, that canon will end your social life, that nikon has bad colors, etc are either mentally ill or paid social media shills. You are hanging out with absolute rejects. The only /p/ meme that might be true is panasonics breaking.
>>4383296Youtube is all shill ads and total retards. Canon r6 and sony a7c both do poorly under consoomer grade LED lights if you use AWB without a dominant neutral color. Always set WB off a grey card when shooting video under artificial light. And all cameras add tints in scenes with lots of one of the white balance axis colors, so badly nikon had to split auto white into a bunch of different settings, so shoot raw and remember daylight = 5600k. Anyone who has been a >photographer for at least two cameras should have figured this out already. If you have color problems after figuring out how white balance works and are not using vintage, low end, or special purpose glass, you have competence problems, not camera problems.
