I have owned the Z7 and the Z50 Nikons since last fall. Both of these cameras easily and regularly get photos for me that look a lot like they were shot with Kodachrome film. As Kodachrome is my benchmark colors for travel and landscape photography this is a big deal. For people shots I tend to prefer the Portra look.
If I want I can get most of the punchy colors of the Nikons by editing the iPhone photos with Lightroom Classic instead of Apple Photos. But if you use the Z7 or Z50 the editing can sometimes be not needed at all or minor. Usually when I put a raw file into Lightroom that came out of the Nikons I just do any cropping if needed, hit auto, the apply one of the profiles. I usually use either the camera landscape or Adobe landscape. The camera landscape is punchier.
For this post I went to the internet and looked up Kodachrome images. Are the images I get out of my two modern cameras better than the sample images on the internet? No. But you cannot buy Kodachrome today or get it developed. You can buy film easily today that is excellent and can be developed and printed or scanned or both.
There is no doubt at all that digital is easier than film, but the bottom four images were all shot on 35mm film, Portra 160, Ektachrome, and Ektar. The cameras used were not particularly expensive and you can see the results. I love the fact that digital Nikons have become so good that they are a good substitute for film and Kodachrome, but still, I wonder sometimes if I should just use film for outdoor landscape and digital for indoors, low light, and some people shots. Make a comment to let me know how you feel.