>>3302221Keep in mind that "colors" are meaningless if you shoot raw. Everything can be changed at no cost to the photo's fidelity, and you can copy and paste the adjustments to every photo you take with the camera. It's really only relevant for JPEG only shooters, aka plebeians. You aren't a JPEG only shooter, are you?
>I was looking at fujifilm and their colors seem saturated and on the green side. Some of the film simulations practically clip the blacks and do oversaturate, but you can turn those off or change everything to an Adobe flat color profile. The one thing I notice about Fuji raw files, though, is that the greens in foliage tend to be tinted a little more bluish than they should be, whereas Canon greens will tend toward yellow tint. Neither is totally correct, but obviously we are used to seeing yellow mixed in with foliage more than blue, so while I'll personally tweak colors in photos from both cameras when I don't feel they are true to life, the pre-tweaked Fuji foliage colors look less good to me. Here's an example.
>Panasonic, canon and olympus have really nice colors.Nikon colors are the most true to life, IMO, but Canon colors are the most flattering and pleasing to the eye, even at the cost of being less faithful. Fuji is very workable, though. If there are no greens in the photo, I rarely make adjustments. Even when there are greens, I don't always even adjust the tint.
As for "nature photos, like flowers and trees," you can literally use any camera or your phone to do that. What you're asking is not very demanding to a camera system. If flower photos are a big priority, I would shop around for macro lenses, read reviews, check prices, and figure out which system makes the most sense for you based on the lenses you'd want to buy.
