i know i'm late, but can i speak as an artist(painter) with little on familiarity with the photo nomenclature?
there is no way for me to be satisfied with ANY camera. there are several obstacles and they all depend on who is viewing and how. there is what i see on my easel under my lighting which renders very well for me(i use a combo of solux and incandescent flourescent with a 94 cri). there is MY photo setup, there is what i see on my computer, what my galleries and their clients see on their computers, the gallery lighting, the lighting of the client in their home, the printer and what he sees on his computer and what he does with my png file, and there's the actual printing.
as a result i go for a broad balance and a tonal range that represents my paintings optimally. my biggest problem has always been light colors that get bleached out.
i use "dirty" and muted colors and my palette is largely secondary not primary. as a result i have to be picky because my color differences are subtle. in fact in the early days printers had to get to KNOW my work because their eyeballs saw my work as not fitting their "idea of color"
my camera of choice hands down is sony. nikon is too loud and it's color has too much chroma. canon is just,,,,off.
i realize my needs are different than a person who shoots product. i had a friend who shot for bloomingdales years ago. he had a hasselblad witha mac computer that was connected to and set up EXACTLY like the bloomies ad and bloomies' printer, so they all effectively saw the exact same thing,,,,,,if you want to go that route. but that's what it takes if your that concerned with accuracy