Well Hello Ive recently bought the sony a6300 and im not very

>>3001324
Shoot raw and postprocess idiot

>>3001409
This.

Nearly any camera can have good color unless you're absolute garbage and can't process for jack shit.

>>3001442
I mean, nothing beats fuji jpeg colors

>>3001664
Yeah, except I dunno... any raw file that's processed....

>>3001666
True, raw fuji probably has the best colors

>>3001672
It's raw you fucking idiot. Yeah, maybe their raw colors are better but any file that's raw can get pretty much any look you want.

>>3001673
I prefer the softness and lack of sharpness of jpegs. Can raw do that??

>>3001676
>being this retarded but thinking you're smart
jpegs are inherently sharper than untouched raw files, you dumb cunt

>>3001679
So raw files can't do that, hah nice

>>3001666
If you think processing it yourself magically makes it better you're as delusional and uninformed about color theory as one can be.

Fuji jpegs look better than 90% of the "meticulously" edited raw files posted here, because 90% of you are completely amateur.

>muh raw processing!
>muh jpegs!

Truth is you can fix Sony's color problems in RAW.

But it takes more time then just starting with a decent fucking RAW file to begin with.

Canon and Fuji have the best "off sensor" colors. No idea why, but it's not just a JPEG artifact, it's there in RAW which means you don't have to fuck with the RAWs as much.

Nikon is...meh...OK.

Sony is poor.

>>3001876
bentax is best.

Itt: people that don't know how to use a colour chart.