Here’s an un-retouched photo taken with my iPad in February 2020 passing Mt Shasta as an airliner passenger, so this would be at cruise altitude:
How do folks find it compares with MSFS’s rendering, circa FL360? IMHO this one’s not half bad:
Same flight, passing over San Francisco, so this would be at lower altitude but before beginning the approach:
vs MSFS version circa 8,000-10,000 ft; the north side of the Golden Gate is much too green and saturated, as is the bay and the ocean:
From a flight in February 2018 passing Oroville, California:
vs MSFS at around FL360 (again, much too green and saturated on the ground):
Different lighting conditions near Bakersfield, California in September 2017 (early afternoon light?):
vs MSFS around FL220 (this one does look too blue to me, and again the ground textures are absurdly too saturated/green):
real:
MSFS around FL240 a bit farther north, similar issues:
I would certainly agree the current MSFS renderings are oversaturated in general, but the ground textures still bother me more than the atmosphere. 
In the real photos, the ground is a LOT less saturated (both at low and high altitude) than in non-photogrammetry areas in the sim, and so that base level of oversaturation is still bumping up the total saturation with the atmospheric effects overlaid.
In some cases, the “blue” effect looks exactly right to me – at high altitudes looking in the distance, in particular. In others, maybe it’s a bit overdone compared to real photos – at mid-range altitudes and looking close-up. It depends also on actual surface and atmospheric and lighting conditions.