Great footage
@jmcu ... just to be clear, was the gain (ISO) "about" the same on all of them?
At a QUICK glance, the overall exposure level seems about the same on all of them ... but looks like some "boost" in the shadows especially for the IPC-54PRO-AS. I think (?) I saw some better dynamic range for the PRO models ... but that may have been because the color temperature seemed more natural to me. I think(!) the PRO's look sharper ... but hard to tell with different focal lengths ... and I think their focus points might be a little closer as I'm looking at foreground grass and the lines in the sidewalk. The S3's telephone pool looks a bit less fuzzy and car spokes (nice to have) look pretty decent.
So maybe I'm clueless, but didn't seem (?) like a clear winner ... I was hoping to see the new camera's clearly show markedly better low light performance.
Curious what others say as I'm sure I'm missing stuff ... plus what do you think?
I'm wondering if maybe either try in a darker area (although it's a good combination of lit/dark) and/or bump the shutter speed up ... so you are "pushing" the limits of the cameras.
I.e. push the exposure triangle so the image from the "laggard" falls apart even in the static scene ... so easier to see who "wins" ... and yes, no IR and no on-board illumination.
BTW, I really like how you provide the "quad" screen and then each individual cam. Plus I really appreciate how you walk through the scene ... so showing not just "static" IQ, but also dynamic IQ. White shirt is a good test ... but maybe some more color in the shorts/shoe - LOL maybe you have an colorful umbrella you can walk through with to exaggerate it. Ditto if you walk around with something that has some big letters on it (or your shirt) for sharpness testing! ;-)
Again, GREAT job ... lining everything up for similar FOV, match settings, etc. for these type of tests is a LOT of work.