I've been rather idly thinking about buying a used Arri Amira for my solo-shooter projects. Naturally when the Amira was a hot-ticket item people were stoked on its slow-motion capabilities, so I've been watching a lot of slow-motion demo footage of people exercising or at the beach or whatever.
But it seems to me the Amira, and pretty much every digital camera I've seen regardless of price, has some kind of a really awful stop-start-y quality to its movement, which is only more apparent when 'overcranked'. And it actually kinda drives me crazy -- to me, more than color or texture or roll-off any of these buzzwords bandied about in regards to film vs digital, the way film captures motion just still seems heads-and-shoulders above what even the most cutting-edge cameras are doing.
I don't really notice anything off-putting per se about digital movement at a regular ~24p image but it still seems to me that film captures movement, especially small movement, with much more clarity and nuance... movements in hair and facial expression and body language are just more apparent, vs digital where those elements feel just a tad dull or glossed over.
Global-shutter stuff like the Komodo seems slightly better to my eye, but there is still something somewhat transposed or artificial about the gap between frames, like certain frames are jumping further ahead than others, and then 24p motion still lacks the crispness of film.