>>4299987People like to say Canon has good colors.
Maybe you're on the other side of the fence, let's say you think Nikon has better colors.
Well guess what?
None of that shit matters. It's all camera specific and based on the sensor color response.
Modern trends have manufacturers sacrificing color fidelity in exchange for "muh high ISO", and the fastest way to improve signal to noise and photon gathering amounts is to remove the color filters entirely and shoot in B&W. Because normies like color, they can't do that, so instead they make the color filtering less strict so reds and blues overlap more. Copium is injected directly to the heart in the form of "color science" when they try to (and fail) to create color profiles and "science" (a meme made up term) to "correct" the downsides to what they have done, and currently NO BRAND is doing it well.
If you care about good color and want to use a color checker and calibrate your color per scene, you'll probably be better off with an older camera with a totally different sensor made when the meta was totally different.
Old cameras were often good at color.
New cameras are usually bad at it, and they rely on heavy amounts of copium color science to try and salvage what is objectively very poorly captured color data. They sabotaged it in the name of sportsfaggotry and they're trying to have their cake and eat it too by trying to fake their sabotaged colors into looking acceptable. It's never perfect.
My advice is to stop caring, go rent some cameras and test them at home and judge for yourself. None of them will be fully correctable and you're not actually going to create custom profiles, the most you'll probably do is shoot a color checker and use that to apply some basic corrctions to some planned photo sets, but you should buy based on what comes out looking okay to your eyes based solely on the uncorrected just "white balanced" images from your RAWs and laugh at people who are brandfagging.
