I'm having trouble understanding the purpose of this debate... it's been going on forever (not just in this thread, but in countless threads across numerous forums). Everyone wants to feel warm and fuzzy inside because they have the "best" camera.
Truth be told, it's just a tool, the result of which can be pushed quite far in post regardless of rather it's a 5D or GH2 hacked. I've CC'd all types of footage (RED, GH2 (hacked), 5D, 7D, film, etc.) and it's really all about your skill as a colorist. I've made piss-poor 5D/7d footage look better than RED simply because I'm a better colorist than the next guy (true story), whereas someone else can make P2 look better than my GH2 because he/she is a better colorist than me (hasn't happened yet, but it could). What I'm trying to say is that it's the skill behind the camera and in the colorist seat that makes a great image, not necessarily the camera.
And just to put it out there, Magic Bullet Looks is a fun tool, but is by no means a color correction suite. Not being condescending, just truthful.
IMO, we're keeping skill of colour correcting the same and having the dependent variable only be the camera… I think that's the point of this debate: What's the absolute best tool before getting it into the hands of a colourist