Most people don't shoot 4k video continuously for 1 hour so the overheating is not the main concern

Also, yeah most people cant even tell 8bit or 10bit especially compressed youtube, IG video.

Still trolling and trolling....

Pardon me. Exactly which old rx100 with Face Priority, live tracking, eyeAF for people and animals, and Product Showcase Focusing was stripped down to create this model??? Right!

And if you look straight down on the camera with it sitting on a flat surface while the lcd is fully open, and sitting on its edge perpendicular to the surface it’s sitting on, you might be able to detect that 2.2% variation from 180 degrees. From that perspective you won’t be able see the screen. I don’t believe I’ve ever tried to take a picture from such a silly position. And if you change the position of the screen to any angle you might actually use to take a picture, you will no longer be able to detect the 2.2% variation. In other words, A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE! Or as photographers back in the real world say, PURE HOKUM!!!

Maybe I’m wrong, but didn’t everyone have to create their ID name?

Since not one reviewer or non-reviewer YET has mentioned anything about the screen angle, I infer that they didn’t notice anything out of the ordinary about it. But tomorrow I’ll be able to see for myself if there is anything to your imagined problem. I only use the word imagined, because neither of us has had the camera in our hands.

Chris and Jordan are working on a video about the ZV-1 for DPReview TV right now. If you can hold out a bit longer it should have good video examples.

Little short clips, one minute or less, from actual users would be more to the point!

We do know this.
1) Sony owners are far more likely to complain about colors and post "how do I get more Canon/Fujifilm/etc. like colors".
2) Review site are more likely to list Sony colors as a "con" and Canon/Fujifilm colors as a "pro"
3) Sony has several times acknowledged they need to fix their colors and that this is an issue.

I know some say Sony colors are closer to "accurate", but they often do not mesh together to be pleasant and are often difficult to adjust.
Also there have been studies that people do not remember colors accurately. The brain changes them to something more pleasing. So sometimes when we go the beach we think, "I remember the water being more teal...or blue...or better looking".

@Joey Bagodonuts
If it's a green tint it's and AWB issue NOT a color science issue.
People confuse them a lot and it is true that WB has a far far greater effect on "perceived color science" than the actual colors but they are separate issues

@your second comment
Since so many now Sony shooters are converts it is natural that people want to get colors that they are used to. That doesn't mean they are better

You have been pretty vocal about Sony colors so you probably heard it already. But in blind tests people pick Sony colors ;) There is not a single blind test where people pick Canon or Fuji.

The bigger question is what is hindering you from achieving the colors you want? You can edit any picture to have any "color science" so what's stopping you from publishing pictures with your favorite color?

It is probably most likely to do with white balance yes but they have their own colours profile for JPG output, some people may like Sony colours, some people may not like it. Everyone has different taste. You will never have a camera that will come close to what we see with our own eyes in real life except someone who has a colourblind.

@Joey Bagodonuts
"This one does look better than all their previous cameras."
I don't want to step on your toes here. But are you sure you are not just imagining that? That's not even a side by side and you want to give judgment about a potential comparison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMfCDujQywY

"I know some say Sony colors are closer to "accurate""
The funny thing with that is that some of the Fujis are actually slightly more accurate than the Sonys
https://pdnonline.com/gear/cameras/the-best-cameras-for-color-reproduction-ranked/
So is accuracy now pleasing or not?

Well it is true that white balance is not superb, you can see that with the little girl. The photo there is warmer than it should be, and in a lot other photos from the gallery it is warmer than it should be. Also with many of the photos you can actually see magenta cast. But the weather also was not great, and the photos would look better if they were shot with more pleasing light. It is more important to know how to capture great moment and see great scene than to have accurate white balance :)

@filipradich
You mean this mixed light day in calgary has lower quality light than the EOS R gallery shoot with professional models under beatiful Hawaiian sky?

How dare you it's the color science. You can clearly see that even if there is no side by side comparison

100% imagination included in all the color "scientist"! This is why everyone in the world who wants to get correct colors CALIBRATE!!! From camera to the printer! All else is just photographic/marketing dreams.
And what is the biggest problem with colors? Most people use "industry leader"LR which has pooorest color edit tools in the world.
And also already pre-owned "pre-sets" does not look as their 60D/5DMK1............
And all of them had PS but somehow do not want to use it to correct LR colors on 500-1500 event shoots......
This are photographic "workflow problems" nowadays .......

@Joey Bagodonuts
I thought the argument was that Sony is accurate, but others are "better than accurate" because their colors are more pleasing
But if those cameras are just as accurate/ or more accurate, that means there is no engineering they are doing in terms of "giving accuracy up for pleasingness"

PS: The great Kodak science is called channel mixer, because that's the tool they had at hand. Here I agree they didn't went for accuracy, but this "science" is repeatable by you and me in a few clicks

@panther fan
Don't feed the trolls.
(in other words, don't reply to trolls)

@Joey Bagodonuts
Yeah but Kodak had no option to alter individual colors one by one, since it was a chemical process far less flexible than a modern 3D LUT conversion can be in the development process

That's why you can repeat their "science" mostly with the help of the channel mixer. In Lightroom that would be called "camera calibration"

To get you started:
If you want to go for a Kodak "Portrait" inspired science
Red Primary Hue: +25
Green Primary Hue +35
Blue Primary Hue: -15
Gives you a very broad golden red tone, with a soft magenta, azure blues and desaturated greens

If you want to go for a Kodak "Landscape" inspired science
Shadow tint: +16
RP Hue: -10
RP Sat: +30
GP Hue: 0
GP Sat: +10
BP Hue: +10
BP Sat: +50
Saturated singular colors, not that great for skin.

We can talk about modern color science. But once you learn a bit about it "old" color science you quickly understand the limitations they had to fight with and why you can achieve similar things today with few steps

@ Joey Bagodonuts
Yes but seems like Kodak findings does not helped them too much to survive. Same as Canon profiles will not help them too much after 10 years of cust milking and product crippling. So maybe at the end they will went selling cinema cameras as P&S .......

Continued...

In theory you are right today you can convert any color into any color. So in theory one camera maker could have a "better" color conversion. As I told you earlier this is not the case, but please don't drag color film into this discussion. That's absurd

@Joey Bagodonuts
I thought we were talking about JPEG color science? That Petapixel article is about the default RAW conversion, probably from Adobe. That is not Sonys color science

And they guy you posted has problems with the default contrast curve. His complaints are "harsh highlights", "blacks not crushed enough", "too much microcontrast" how is that a color science problem? That's a taste "problem" and luckily you can easily change the contrast curve seperate from the color profile on Sony cameras so there is an easy fix if you don't like the default

Yeahhh people are ready to pay much more to get micro contrast with Zeiss lenses. But here this is a problem ........

@Joey Bagodonuts

Subjective sentiment and mindset, and Sony obviously tries to change that.

Again. You still didn't show me the blind test where a Fuji or Canon wins in terms of colors ;)

And no I am not Sony fan and Canon hater!!! For now I like Nikon colors the most, but I do not care. I shoot RAW! But I care for video which is the most poorest on Canon and has never been addressed from Canon and this is why we have Magic Lantern project!!! Just recently Canon started to change but only in high range!
So from customer stand point Sony and others provide much more than Canon lack of contrast, sharpness and saturation. Which in video is pathetic for last 10 years..........
When Canon will change and provide value to low and mid range customer which support company for decades???? Because in Sony you CAN CHANGE colors whatever you like. But with no AF in 4K crop what exactly you will do?
And many other questions unresolved from Canon side. But they become very well known as masters of the crippling .......