Author: Matt Johnson

I’ve been using this Dell Precision Workstation laptop that I reviewed in 2024, and this Apple M4 MacBook Air that I reviewed in 2025. And with a $6,800 price difference between them, I thought it was finally time to compare them head to head when it comes to the kind of work I do every single day: video editing.

We’re going to look at speed, reliability, and battery life, and I want to help you see how one of the best PC workstation laptops you can buy stacks up against one of Apple’s most affordable, entry-level laptops. The results genuinely surprised me.

And before we dive in, if you edit videos and want to get better at it fast, grab my free Edit Videos Like a Pro guide here. It’s packed with tips that I think you’re going to find really helpful.

The Price Breakdown

You might be wondering: how does a Dell laptop cost $8,000? Just like Apple, Dell is relatively affordable to get your foot in the door, and I say relatively because even the entry point for a Precision Workstation is several thousand dollars. This particular laptop uses a workstation-grade 16GB NVIDIA RTX 5000 Ada Series GPU, which is more expensive than a consumer gaming card, and it’s also configured with an 8TB internal SSD, which Dell (and Apple) both love to charge a premium for.

On the Mac side, the $1,200 MacBook Air I’m using is not the absolute base model. I put a lot of research into which MacBook Air is the best bang for your buck specifically for video editing, and the $1,200 configuration is the one I keep recommending. (I have a full buyer’s guide on that if you want more detail.)

Specs: David vs. Goliath

The Dell is loaded. It has an Intel i9-13900H with 13 cores and 20 threads, an RTX 5000 Ada Nvidia GPU, and 64GB of RAM. The SSD is 8TB. This was essentially the highest-tier laptop configuration that Dell offered in 2024.

The MacBook Air, by comparison, has a base M4 chip (not the Pro or Max), a 10-core CPU, a 10-core GPU, a 512GB SSD, and just 16GB of unified memory. On paper, this really does look like a David vs. Goliath situation. A thick, powerful PC workstation against a thin, fanless little laptop.

But here’s where things get interesting.

One Important Ground Rule for This Comparison

Before we get into the tests, there’s something you need to know about Windows laptops: they run significantly slower on battery power than when plugged in. Even with all performance settings cranked to max. This is not a Dell-specific issue, it’s a Windows issue, and it’s still frankly shocking to see in this day and age.

With a MacBook, you don’t have to think about this. Unplug it, edit 4K video, export a project, and it performs the same as if it were plugged in. Because of this, all MacBook results in this comparison assume battery power, while the Dell gets two results for most tests: plugged in, and on battery.

Startup Speed

Starting from a complete cold boot, the MacBook came to the login screen in 12.9 seconds. The Dell took 20.6 seconds plugged in and 20.9 seconds on battery. Interestingly, the Dell’s battery vs. plugged-in difference was almost nothing here. It’s a noticeable gap compared to the Mac, but not a dealbreaker.

As a side note on sleep: the MacBook wakes up in under half a second, just like a smartphone. The Dell wakes in about 3 seconds either way, which is fine, but the broader issue is that I’ve never fully trusted putting Windows laptops to sleep. There’s always a chance it doesn’t go to sleep properly, and I’ve arrived at destinations with a completely dead battery or a bag full of hot air because the laptop decided to wake itself up and run full-tilt in my backpack. The Mac? I close the lid and don’t think about it.

SSD Speed

Using the Blackmagic Disk Speed Test, the Dell pushed about 5,400 MB/s read and write when plugged in, compared to the MacBook’s roughly 3,000 MB/s read and 3,400 MB/s write. A meaningful gap.

But on battery, the Dell dropped down to around 4,300 MB/s read and 4,700 MB/s write, a 15 to 20% performance loss. Still faster than the Mac overall, but getting closer. And if you’re copying from an SD card rather than the internal SSD, both laptops perform similarly since neither SSD is being maxed out anyway.

Video Editing Performance (Premiere Pro)

The MacBook opened Premiere Pro in about 3.7 seconds. The Dell took 8 seconds plugged in, and nearly 16 seconds on battery. That battery difference on the PC side is wild.

On the timeline, editing a mix of 4K 60fps and 6K 60fps footage, the MacBook Air was incredibly smooth. It scrubbed through footage like it was nothing, no lag, no hesitation. And remember, this is the base-level, cheapest MacBook Apple makes, running entirely on battery power.

The Dell, when plugged in, was actually very close to the MacBook. It handled the footage well and didn’t struggle. But on battery, it was noticeably slower. It almost felt like the laptop was reluctant to spin up the fans to keep pace, even in high performance mode. Once it warmed up and the fans got going, it improved, but it still fell below the MacBook’s battery performance. That’s something to keep in mind if you frequently edit away from an outlet.

Export Speed

This is where things got both expected and genuinely surprising. I set up the exact same 10-minute DaVinci Resolve project on both machines, same bitrate, same resolution, same hardware encoding settings.

The Dell finished the export in 3 minutes and 40 seconds plugged in. The MacBook took 4 minutes and 9 seconds, 29 seconds slower. The Mac has no fan, so it has to thermally throttle itself during long exports. Not surprising.

But here’s the surprising part: once I unplugged the Dell, that same export ballooned to 5 minutes and 48 seconds. The MacBook? Still exactly 4 minutes and 9 seconds, every time, because its hardware encoders don’t care whether it’s plugged in or not.

Let that sink in. The $1,200 MacBook Air on battery actually exports video faster than the $8,000 Dell workstation on battery. That’s not a knock on the Dell, it’s just the reality of how Windows handles performance when unplugged. If you’re always plugged in, the Dell wins. If you’re ever away from an outlet, the story flips completely.

Fan Noise

Open Chrome on the Dell: fans spin. Open Premiere Pro: fans spin faster. Start an export: it sounds like the laptop is about to take off. It’s not the loudest PC I’ve ever owned (I had an Asus gaming laptop in the mid-2000s that legitimately sounded like it was about to levitate), but it is constant.

The MacBook Air has no fan. Zero. Even during a full video export, it’s completely silent. The gap between these two is, genuinely, infinite.

Battery Life

I’ll tell you a quick story. Back in 2019, I was editing in the car while my wife drove us across Texas. No charger, about a four-hour drive. Three hours in, the laptop hit 20% and I had to stop editing. That’s the PC laptop experience for video editors.

With the MacBook Air, I was on a long international flight editing 4K footage in DaVinci Resolve for hours. When I checked the battery, it had only dropped 12%. The same type of workflow that killed my PC battery in three hours barely made a dent on the MacBook.

For most of my editing career up until 2025, traveling with a laptop meant constantly searching for a power outlet. The MacBook changed that completely. It’s the first time I’ve felt genuinely free to edit wherever I am.

For more on how the MacBook Air holds up long-term, check out my M4 MacBook Air 6-Month Long-Term Review and my MacBook buyer’s guide for video editors.

The Verdict

Yes, the Dell is a year older than the MacBook. And yes, if you’re always plugged in and sitting at a desk, the Dell wins on raw export speed and SSD throughput. But once you unplug it, the story changes dramatically in almost every category. Slower editing, slower exports, shorter battery life, constant fan noise.

The MacBook Air costs $6,800 less, is nearly silent, runs identically on battery as it does plugged in, and honestly unlocked a new level of productivity for me as a video editor. When it’s time to travel, I’m grabbing the MacBook every single time.

I’m still interested in PC laptops, I love that you can tinker with them and upgrade the RAM or SSD, and I’ll keep reviewing them. But right now, for portable video editing, the MacBook Air at $1,200 is just an absurdly good deal.

And if you haven’t yet, don’t forget to grab my free Edit Videos Like a Pro guide. It’s completely free and I think you’ll find the tips inside it really helpful no matter what you’re editing on.

I’ve been editing with a 5K Ultra Wide monitor for a little over a year now, and it has been a fantastic experience. I love the resolution, I love the screen real estate for my timelines, but there’s been one limitation I kept running into, and it all comes down to my camera: the Panasonic S1II.

This camera films in 6K resolution, and I’ve had no way of viewing that footage natively on any monitor I owned. None of them were high enough resolution, so I always had to let the monitor downscale to display it. And while going from 5K to 6K might not sound like a huge leap, that’s actually 75% more pixels this camera can record than my Ultra Wide could show. A pretty gosh darn big difference.

That is, until now. Enter the ASUS ProArt PA32QCV, a 6K monitor that feels purpose-built for video editors. It’s incredibly color accurate, covers a very wide color space, and I’ve been using it to edit my own work. Today I’m reviewing it from the perspective of a video editor who also does some gaming on the side, and I’m going to tell you whether you should buy it.

For the sake of ethics: this review is not sponsored by ASUS and I haven’t been paid by them, but they did send me this monitor so I could make this review.

Also, if you want to level up your video editing while you’re here, go grab my free Edit Videos Like a Pro guide. It’s completely free and packed with some of the best techniques I’ve learned over the years.

Unboxing and Physical Design

Like all monitors, this one comes in a big box inside another big box. The unboxing process is smooth, which is always appreciated when dealing with large equipment.

Once you get it out, you immediately notice just how big this thing is. ASUS calls it 32 inches in the product name (hence the PA32), but the fine print says it’s actually 31.5 inches. Honestly, not a huge deal. This monitor is still massive, they can round up if they want to.

The front has minimal bezel except for a strip along the bottom, and here’s something I genuinely love: buttons on the front of the monitor. Yes, actual physical buttons you can see and press without guessing. Companies have been moving away from this for years in the name of aesthetics, replacing them with buttons on the bottom or the back. And while that looks cleaner, it’s a nightmare in practice. You end up running your fingers along the back of a $1,000+ monitor, blindly pressing things, hoping something works. Some monitors even have joysticks. Joysticks on a monitor!

ASUS said forget aesthetics, here are the buttons you need, plus a little nipple joystick to make things even easier. Every monitor company should do this. Somebody start a petition, I’ll sign it.

The stand is also excellent. You can easily adjust the height and rotate the monitor vertically. You know, in case you want to edit an Instagram Reel in 6K. Some of you just cringed reading that, which is very funny.

Ports and Connectivity

On the back you get: one HDMI 2.1, one DisplayPort 1.4, four USB-C ports (one Thunderbolt 4 at 96W for charging and display input, one 15W USB-C for charging or daisy-chaining, one general USB-C), two USB-A ports, and a headphone jack.

That sounds like a lot, and it is, but here’s my one gripe: there’s only one HDMI and one DisplayPort. For a monitor at $1,300, that’s a bit surprising. My old $300 Dell has two HDMI inputs. If you’re running multiple computers on your desk like I am (a custom Windows PC, a Mac mini, and a MacBook Air), you may find yourself wishing for an extra HDMI. Just something to be aware of going in.

Image Quality: 6K Up Close Is Something Else

Here’s the thing about 6K TVs: they don’t really exist. Manufacturers skipped from 4K straight to 8K. And even if they did exist, you’d be sitting so far away from a TV that you’d never appreciate the extra resolution. But when you’re sitting a few feet from a 6K monitor at your editing desk? You can absolutely tell. This screen has over double the pixels of a 4K display, and it shows.

This thing looks phenomenal. And honestly, are you surprised? The ProArt line has been ASUS’s flagship brand for filmmakers and photographers for years. Color accuracy is exceptional right out of the box, it comes factory calibrated with documentation to prove it.

I still calibrated it myself using my Spyder X2 Ultra, and the screen looked nearly identical before and after. Gamma was at 2.31 initially and settled at 2.22 post-calibration, extremely close to the 2.20 target. The Spyder software confirmed 100% sRGB and 97% P3 coverage. ASUS claims 98%, so that’s about as close as you’re realistically going to get.

In short: this is a very color accurate panel that you can trust for color correction and color grading. If you want to speed up your grading workflow once you’ve got a reliable monitor like this, check out my LUTs as a starting point, and I’ve also got a full tutorial on how to use LUTs to color grade your footage in Premiere Pro.

One note: this is still an IPS panel, so contrast isn’t going to match an OLED. It’s not even an IPS Black variant. But to my eye it still looks very good, and I wouldn’t let contrast be a dealbreaker here. The more important IPS advantage is the 178 degree viewing angle. Even if this is your secondary monitor sitting off to the side, colors won’t shift or wash out unless you’re extremely far off center. That matters a lot when you’re trusting a monitor for color work.

If you want a monitor that handles OLED-level contrast and color accuracy, I also reviewed the Dell U3226Q, which actually calibrates itself. Worth a look if that’s more your speed. And if you’re on a tighter budget, I reviewed the BenQ VideoVue PV3200U, a solid 4K editing monitor around $650 to $800.

Scaling and Pixel Density

At 216 pixels per inch, this display is essentially a Retina display in Apple’s terms. Individual pixels are not distinguishable. But there’s a quirk to be aware of: at native 6K resolution with no scaling applied, everything on your operating system, buttons, menus, text, is going to be extremely tiny. Like, squinting-and-getting-close tiny.

The good news is that both Windows and macOS handle this well. I tested with both, and on Windows, scaling to 200% looks great. On Mac, the default 2x scaling shows the system UI at 3K resolution while playing back video natively in 6K, which is exactly what you want as a video editor. It just works.

The 60Hz Limitation (and Why It Matters for Gaming, Not Editing)

Here’s where things get interesting. This monitor runs at 60Hz. That’s the same as the Apple Pro Display XDR, which makes sense given the resolution demands. But the Pro Display XDR costs five to six times more, so it’s really only going to be purchased by dedicated professionals who aren’t thinking about gaming on it. The ASUS at $1,300 sits in a zone where editors who also game might be tempted by it.

For reference, my 5K Ultra Wide is also 120Hz, and it’s an absolute unicorn because it handles both video editing and gaming beautifully. This ASUS won’t give you that.

That said, for video editing, 60Hz is not a dealbreaker at all. Most of the time you’re editing footage at 24 or 30 FPS, and even high frame rate footage gets slowed down in post. The refresh rate just isn’t a factor in that context.

For gaming, though, if you’re coming from a 120Hz panel, motion will feel like a noticeable downgrade. And for what it’s worth, I’d also recommend not gaming at native 6K. Even the most powerful GPUs are going to struggle. Drop it to 4K or 2.5K and you’ll be much happier.

(This is also why DisplayPort 1.4 is sufficient here. At 60Hz, it can handle 6K without issue. You don’t need DisplayPort 2.1 unless you’re pushing higher refresh rates at this resolution.)

Extra Features Worth Mentioning

ASUS threw in some genuinely useful extras with this monitor:

M Model-P3 Mode is designed to match the colors of this display to your MacBook screen for a consistent look across devices. If you’re frequently moving between your laptop and your desk setup, that’s a real convenience.

DisplayWidget Center is a software app that lets you control all monitor settings from your mouse rather than pressing the physical buttons. Gamma, color temperature, brightness, contrast, saturation, it’s all there. I know I raved about the physical buttons, and I still love that they exist, but for precise adjustments this app is excellent. I’d love to see more monitor companies offer something like this.

Auto KVM lets you connect a keyboard and mouse dongle to the monitor itself and switch control between computers based on which display input you’re using. If you’re running a Mac and a PC at the same desk without smart peripherals, this is a fantastic feature. I personally use Logitech mice and keyboards with their built-in multi-device switching, so I don’t rely on this, but if your setup doesn’t have that, the KVM switch alone is very useful.

LuxPixel anti-glare coating works really well. There are lights behind me when I edit, and this screen handles reflections better than almost any monitor I’ve used. If you’re editing in a brighter room, this is a genuine advantage.

How Does It Compare to the Apple Pro Display XDR?

Both displays run at 6016 x 3384, the same 16:9 aspect ratio and resolution. The key differences:

The Pro Display XDR hits 1,600 nits of peak HDR brightness. The ASUS hits 600 nits. That’s a significant gap if HDR grading is a core part of your workflow. The Pro Display XDR also gets to 100% DCI-P3, while the ASUS lands at 98% (and I measured 97% in my test). In terms of color accuracy for standard dynamic range work? They’re honestly quite close.

Here’s a thought: if you already have a Pro Display XDR and want a secondary monitor that matches its resolution without another $5,000+ investment, this ASUS is a compelling answer. You could buy four of these, stand included, for the price of one Pro Display XDR (before even factoring in Apple’s $1,000 stand). Use the Pro Display XDR for HDR grading, and use the ASUS as your timeline monitor. That’s actually a really solid dual-monitor setup.

Should You Buy It?

If you need a 6K monitor that can play back your 6K footage natively, and you want exceptional color accuracy for color grading, you are going to love this monitor. There really aren’t many 6K displays out there, and none of them feel as purpose-built for video editing as this one does at this price.

If you need both top-tier editing performance and a high-refresh-rate gaming experience from a single monitor, look at the 5K Ultra Wide I reviewed previously (5K at 120Hz is still wild to me). But if editing is your primary focus, or if 60FPS gaming is fine with you, the ASUS ProArt PA32QCV is a stellar monitor that’s going to feel current for a long time.

At $1,300, it isn’t cheap. But considering what 6K resolution, this level of color accuracy, and all the extra features typically cost, ASUS has done something impressive here. And hey, maybe it’ll help push 4K and 5K monitor prices down a little for the rest of us. We can hope.

If you want to make the most of a great monitor like this with an equally dialed-in editing workflow, grab my free Edit Videos Like a Pro guide. It’s completely free and covers some of the best techniques I’ve picked up over the years.

The Hollyland Lark Max 2 sets a new standard for wireless microphones with features I have never seen in any other wireless mic before. Features that I actually think you will use and love. And the Lark A1 gives you a ton of great features at one of the most affordable price points I have ever seen for a wireless microphone system.

In this review, I am going to break down both of these mics and tell you exactly what makes them such game changers in the world of audio recording. And just so you know, all of the audio throughout the companion YouTube video was recorded using these two microphones, so you can judge the quality for yourself as you watch.

Note: This review was done in partnership with Hollyland. As always, all opinions are my own.

Lark Max 2: The Flagship Features You Need To Know About

Let’s start with the essentials. The Lark Max 2 is Hollyland’s flagship wireless microphone system, and it comes packed with the specs you would expect at this level:

• 32-bit float internal recording with 8GB of onboard storage (10 hours of recording time)
• Three levels of AI noise cancellation
• 11 hours of transmitter battery life, 12 hours of receiver battery life
• 54 total hours of battery life with the charging case
• 1,115 feet of wireless range
• Timecode support

And the transmitters are incredibly lightweight. You and your subjects will barely notice they are wearing them.

Full Chain 32-Bit Float Audio Recording (This Is HUGE)

Now here is where things get really interesting. Hollyland is doing something with this microphone system that, as far as I am aware, no other company has done before, and it is called Full Chain 32-Bit Float Audio Recording.

Let me explain why this matters. 32-bit float audio recording is incredible because it gives you a massive amount of control over your audio in post. You can recover peaked audio, bring up quiet levels without introducing noise, and basically have a safety net that protects you from audio disasters. I absolutely love it.

But here is the problem that has existed up until now: if you wanted 32-bit float audio from a wireless mic system, you could only get it recorded internally to the transmitter. There was no way to wirelessly transmit that signal to your recording device. So if you wanted the higher quality 32-bit float file, you had to plug the transmitter into your computer after the shoot, copy the file, and then sync it up manually with the 24-bit audio you recorded wirelessly. It was a real pain.

Full Chain 32-Bit Float changes all of that. With this system, the transmitter not only saves the 32-bit float audio internally as a backup, it also wirelessly transmits that 32-bit float signal to your receiver, which then saves it directly to your device. No syncing. No workarounds. Just pristine 32-bit float audio recorded right alongside your video.

I tested this with my iPhone using the Blackmagic Camera app, and it worked flawlessly. I connected the receiver via USB-C, set the audio quality to IEEE float, and recorded as normal. When I brought that audio into my editing software, it was recognized as 32-bit float and I could adjust levels freely, just like any other 32-bit float file. It is honestly a little crazy that this actually works this well.

Now, there is one important limitation to know: Full Chain 32-Bit Float is currently only compatible with smartphones and computers (like a MacBook or PC). It does not work with cameras yet, which makes sense given that virtually no camera manufacturers other than Panasonic even support 32-bit float recording internally. If I had one wish for this system, it would be for Hollyland to work with Panasonic to enable this via their DMW-XLR2 adapter. That would be extremely cool.

But even as it stands, if you are recording Instagram Reels, YouTube content, or anything with your phone where you need to guarantee high-quality audio, this microphone just unlocked a completely new way of recording wireless audio.

The Wireless Monitoring Solution You Did Not Know You Needed

Here is another major pain point that Hollyland solved in a really clever way.

Monitoring your audio while recording is important. It gives you peace of mind that everything sounds good and there are no transmission issues. The traditional way to do this is to plug wired headphones into the receiver’s headphone output. But let’s be honest, when was the last time you used wired headphones?

A lot of filmmakers have been asking wireless mic companies to add smartphone app monitoring via Bluetooth. But that solution has been flaky, laggy, and generally not ideal in practice.

So what did Hollyland do? They built a pair of wireless earbuds right into the system. When you put them in your ears, they instantly and automatically connect to the receiver so you can hear exactly what is being recorded, in real time, with no setup required.

And they use a 2.4 GHz wireless signal by default, not Bluetooth. That gives you a 100-meter monitoring range, meaning you do not have to be glued to your camera. You can be quite a ways away and still confirm your audio sounds perfect. (They do also have a Bluetooth mode if you want to use them as regular wireless earbuds, which is a nice bonus.)

Want to know what makes this even better for wedding filmmakers? If you are working with a second shooter, you can each wear one earbud and both monitor the audio simultaneously. And because the earbuds are open-ear, you can still hear everything around you while you film. It is such a smart solution, and I honestly cannot believe it took this long for someone to build this.

Four Transmitters, Hot Shoe Support, and a Lav Mic Option

A few more features worth highlighting:

One receiver, four transmitters. Most wireless mic systems cap you at two transmitters per receiver. The Lark Max 2 lets you connect up to four. For wedding filmmakers, this is a big deal. Imagine miking up four people right before a toast session. Instead of scrambling to mic each one individually at the last minute, you can have all four ready to go and recording high-quality 32-bit float audio to each transmitter as a backup. Really reassuring for those high-stakes moments.

Sony Hot Shoe Adapter. Hollyland worked closely with Sony to make it possible to connect the Lark Max 2 directly through the hot shoe of your Sony camera, no separate 3.5mm cable required. It reduces cable clutter and makes setup faster.

Lav mic support via USB-C. There is no 3.5mm mic jack on the transmitter, but you can use a USB-C to 3.5mm adapter to connect a lav mic. This keeps the transmitter super compact when you do not need a lav, but gives you the option when you do. I personally prefer using a lav because of my beard, since I can tuck it further under my shirt and avoid any scratching noise. Either way, the flexibility here is really great.

Timecode Support

Yes, the Lark Max 2 supports timecode. It is audio-based timecode, meaning it will take up an audio channel on your camera. Hollyland gives you options: you can send a timecode signal via the 3.5mm mic jack on top of the receiver, or via the USB-C port. When you combine the USB-C option with Hollyland’s Sony hot shoe adapter, you can run a timecode signal directly into your Sony camera’s right audio channel without a separate cable, while still recording clean audio on the left channel.

I tested it with Deity TC-1 and Atomos Ultrasync devices. Getting it to work required using the hot shoe adapter and temporarily setting the Lark Max 2 to Mode 3 (which sends timecode on both channels) to jam sync, then switching back to normal audio recording mode. It works, it is just a bit of a process. I still dream of a day when all camera and timecode device manufacturers agree on one universal wireless standard, but audio timecode at least works everywhere.

If you want to go deeper, I’ve also got Wedding Filmmaking: DJI Mic 2 Vs Rode Wireless Pro.

AI Noise Cancellation That Is Actually Good

Anytime a company slaps “AI” on a feature, I am naturally skeptical. But the Lark Max 2’s noise cancellation genuinely impressed me.

Hollyland trained an AI model to mimic human hearing, essentially teaching it to separate the sound of a voice from background noise. What makes this implementation unique is what they call stepless noise cancellation. Instead of choosing from a few preset levels (low, medium, high), you can dial in anywhere from 1 to 25 dB of noise reduction. That level of precision is fantastic, and it pairs incredibly well with the wireless earbuds so you can hear exactly what effect you are dialing in as you adjust.

In my testing:

• Around level 5: Noticeably cleans up background sounds without any processed sound. Great for most situations.
• Around level 13: Strong reduction, still sounds clean and natural.
• Level 25: Definitely has a processed quality, but if you are in a truly loud environment and need clean dialogue, it is still very usable.

This is easily some of the best noise cancellation I have heard from a wireless microphone system. If you record in any kind of challenging audio environment, you are going to appreciate having this level of control.

Hollyland Lark A1: Budget-Friendly and Surprisingly Capable

Now let’s talk about the other microphone in this lineup, the Lark A1. This one is primarily designed as a smartphone wireless mic, meaning you plug the receiver into your phone and record audio wirelessly. But the features packed into this thing at its price point are genuinely shocking.

The transmitters are absurdly small. Like, smaller than anything I have seen before. And they weigh only 8 grams, so your clients will forget they are even wearing one.

Here is what you get with the Lark A1:

• 24-bit audio recording (not 32-bit float, but totally understandable at this price)
• Auto Clip Prevention: constantly analyzes volume levels and automatically lowers the recording gain if audio is about to peak. Tested this and it works really well.
• AI noise cancellation with three levels (light, medium, strong)
• 9 hours of transmitter battery life
• 54 total hours with the charging case
• 656 feet of transmission range
• Available in black and white

That last point is one I feel strongly about. I have lost count of the number of times I needed to put a mic on someone wearing a white shirt or a wedding dress and had to hide a black transmitter under their clothing. Having a white option makes a real difference. Every microphone company should offer this.

The noise cancellation on the A1 is similar in character to the Lark Max 2, just with fewer granular controls. In my testing, the light setting works beautifully for most situations, and I would save the medium and strong settings for really loud environments where you absolutely need clean dialogue and cannot move to a quieter spot.

You can also control the A1 via the Larksound app (same app as the Lark Max 2), which lets you adjust gain levels wirelessly. And like the Lark Max 2, you can charge your phone while the receiver is plugged in. Convenient.

Oh, and the starting price? $50. That is not a typo.

Which One Should You Buy?

If you can afford it, the Lark Max 2 is a no-brainer. The Full Chain 32-Bit Float audio recording alone is unlike anything else on the market, and when you combine it with the wireless earbuds for monitoring, the Sony hot shoe support, four-transmitter capability, and the best noise cancellation I have tested from a wireless mic, it is genuinely revolutionary. Especially if you are doing a lot of phone-based recording for social content.

But if budget is a concern, the Lark A1 at $50 is an absolute steal. You still get AI noise cancellation, Auto Clip Prevention to protect your audio, a compact and lightweight design, and solid sound quality. It is the Lark Max 2’s little sibling and it wears that title proudly.

If you want to level up your overall audio game on set, I also recommend checking out my full post on how I record audio for wedding films where I go deep on every recorder, mic, and cable in my kit. And if you want to sharpen your editing skills so your audio sounds as good in post as it does on set, check out my Edit Videos Like a Pro guide.

And if you are into the Panasonic ecosystem and want an incredible on-camera mic option, check out my review of the Panasonic DMW-DMS1, which also features 32-bit float recording.

I want to lead with this: I did not get paid for this review. I reached out to Zhiyun and asked if they’d send me the lights so I could make this video, they said yes, and here we are. No sponsorship, no script handed to me. Just my honest take.

And my honest take? This light is really, really good.

This is the Zhiyun Molus X100 RGB Cam Mackey Edition, and I’ve been testing it as a wedding filmmaker, YouTuber, and freelance commercial filmmaker. If you’re like me and you’ve been hunting for one light that can do it all, keep reading.

First Impressions: The Case and What’s Inside

Right out of the gate, I hope you like the color brown and small semi-flightless birds, because Cam Mackey’s logo and branding are all over this light and its carrying case. Personally, I don’t mind it at all. In a sea of black and gray light cases, a little color is a refreshing change.

But the real story here isn’t the case’s look. It’s what’s inside. The word that keeps coming to mind whenever I think about this light kit is versatility, and the included accessories are exactly why.

Here’s what you get straight out of the box:

• The Zhiyun Molus X100 RGB light itself
• Fresnel lens attachment
• Metal magnetic barn doors
• Compact collapsible softbox
• Bowens mount adapter
• Included battery (55Wh)
• AC adapter
• The carrying case

That is a full kit. In one case. That you can carry onto a plane.

The Fresnel Lens: A Surprisingly Great Spotlight

The fresnel lens attaches to the front of the light and gives you roughly a 15 to 20 degree beam angle. To be clear, the beam is not adjustable. You can’t tighten or widen it. But here’s the thing: I didn’t miss that feature at all when I tested this at a real wedding reception.

I set it up in the corner of a dance floor and let it rip, and it lit up the entire space without me once wishing it was wider or narrower. The beam angle is just in the right sweet spot.

That said, I want to be upfront: compared to a dedicated fresnel spotlight like the Practilite 602 or the Aputure 60x, the beam on this light is not quite as crisp. There’s a decent amount of falloff on the edges. But given the wide beam angle, even on a tight dance floor, this light has more than enough spread to cover the space. For the price and what you get in the full kit, it’s a more than reasonable trade-off.

And beyond weddings, this fresnel is equally useful as a hair light or background kicker for YouTube videos, corporate interviews, or commercial shoots. Versatile, as promised.

Barn Doors: Control the Spill

The included metal magnetic barn doors attach directly to the fresnel lens, and they are excellent. They help compensate for the beam’s softer edges by giving you real control over where the light goes and where it doesn’t.

At the wedding I used this at, I was able to dial the barn doors in so the light only hit the dance floor and didn’t bleed onto the walls or ceiling around it. If you’re shooting weddings or events where you need to control spill, you’re going to love these.

The Softbox: A Complete Studio Setup In One Case

Here’s where things get really impressive. This light comes with a compact, collapsible softbox included in the box. That’s not something you expect at this price point.

With most lights, if you want soft, flattering light for an interview or a talking head YouTube video, you have to go buy a separate softbox, figure out how to rig it up, and then figure out how to transport it. With the Molus X100, you just pull the softbox out of the case and you’re good.

And the way Zhiyun designed the case to transport the softbox is genuinely clever: the bottom of the case has ring straps that hold the collapsed softbox perfectly. Slide it in, and the whole kit stays organized and compact. It’s the kind of thoughtful design that makes you realize someone actually used this thing in the field before shipping it.

Bowens Mount Adapter: Maximum Compatibility

If you already own a larger softbox, a spotlight attachment, or other Bowens-compatible modifiers, Zhiyun also includes a Bowens mount adapter so you can use any of that gear with this light. That’s a smart call on their part, and it opens up the modifier ecosystem considerably.

One small gripe: I couldn’t find a good way to store the Bowens adapter in or on the case. It’s not a deal-breaker, but it does mean you’ll need to toss it in your bag separately. A minor inconvenience for an otherwise extremely well-organized kit.

RGB and Bi-Color: Yes, It Does Both

This isn’t just a bi-color light that lets you dial between warm and cool. This light can output any color in the RGB spectrum.

That means if you’re filming a wedding reception and the DJ forgot to bring lights, you can add some color to the dance floor and give the whole thing a vibe. Or if you’re filming a YouTube video and you want to change the color of the background, mimic the look of moonlight coming through a window, or dial in a specific mood, this light can do all of that.

There’s also a companion app so you can control the light wirelessly and really fine-tune the color output. I found it intuitive and easy to use.

If you’re interested in pushing your color work even further in post, you might want to check out my LUTs to help shape the look of your footage after you’ve nailed your lighting.

The Battery: Better Than It Looks On Paper

Here’s the part of this review where I want to push back a little on the spec sheet, because the specs can be misleading.

The included battery is 55 watt hours, which keeps it under the carry-on limit for air travel. Zhiyun rates it at about 34 minutes of runtime at full power. When I first heard that number, I thought, okay, that’s not great.

But then I actually used it at a wedding. A two-hour wedding reception. And the battery still had about 75% charge left when I took the light down at the end of the night.

How? Because in a real-world reception environment, I didn’t need this light at 100% power. I only needed around 20 to 30% brightness to make a meaningful difference on the dance floor. At those power levels, the runtime is dramatically longer than the rated spec at full blast.

This is the kind of thing you can only learn from actually using the gear at a wedding, not from a spec sheet. And it completely changes the value proposition of the included battery. At moderate power, this light can feasibly run an entire wedding reception on the included battery alone. That is a big deal for a light this compact.

The Bottom Line: Is The Zhiyun Molus X100 RGB Worth It?

The Pro Kit of this light runs somewhere between $450 and $500, and for that you get the light, carrying case, fresnel lens, barn doors, softbox, Bowens mount adapter, and battery.

Here’s my honest take: if you want a single lighting kit that can handle a YouTube video on Tuesday, a corporate or commercial shoot on Wednesday, and a wedding reception on Saturday, this light can do all of that. You don’t need multiple different lights. You just need this one.

For filmmakers who are just starting out and looking at buying their first real light, this thing checks a ton of boxes in one purchase. And for experienced filmmakers looking to add something compact and versatile to their kit, it fits right in alongside whatever else you already own.

I would have absolutely loved to have something like this back when I was getting started. Instead I was running Home Depot work lights in 2008. Those things were hot. Literally.

If you want to level up not just your lighting but your entire video production, check out my guide Edit Videos Like a Pro for more tips on producing better content from start to finish.

And if you want to see more of the gear I use and recommend for wedding filmmaking, check out my posts on destination wedding videography gear and how to film a wedding reception.

Both Adobe and Blackmagic have been aggressive about releasing updates every year, and in 2025, both programs are better than ever. But which one actually wins?

I put them head to head in five categories, and I’m going to tell you what I like, what I dislike, and who I think takes the W in each one.

And before we dive in, if you want help editing your videos regardless of which program you use, grab my free Edit Videos Like a Pro guide. It’s completely free and covers my biggest rules for making better edits. Let’s get into it.

1. Stability

Let’s start with arguably the most important category, because it affects literally everything you do when editing: stability. For context, I use both Premiere Pro and DaVinci Resolve pretty interchangeably. It’s almost a coin flip on which one I’ll open for any given project. So when I say that, even now, after Adobe has been working on stability improvements for years, Premiere Pro is still behind DaVinci Resolve in this area, I am not sugarcoating my experience.

The issues I run into most often in the 2025 version of Premiere Pro on PC aren’t hard crashes where the program freezes and closes. That’s actually become less frequent. What I keep running into instead is that the play button will literally stop working while I’m editing.

I’ll be in the middle of a cut, and suddenly I can no longer play back the video. The play button is completely unresponsive. Pressing the spacebar, clicking repeatedly, scrubbing the timeline, none of it works. The video just stays frozen on whatever frame it paused on, and the only fix is to fully restart Premiere.

It’s annoying.

And it happens at least once in every YouTube video I edit in the program. DaVinci Resolve, on the other hand, is not a perfect program either. I do still experience crashes where the program will shut down, especially on very large projects. But here’s the key difference: Resolve has a feature called Live Save, which constantly saves every edit you make in the background.

So even when it does crash, you can restart the program in 10 to 15 seconds and be back exactly where you were. That makes a huge difference. The crashes are still annoying, but the quick recoverability puts Resolve significantly ahead of Premiere when it comes to stability in 2025. 

Winner: DaVinci Resolve

2. Exporting

This one is more nuanced, and it’s actually an area where Premiere Pro has a meaningful advantage in one specific way. In terms of raw export speed, DaVinci Resolve is significantly faster than Premiere Pro, often by several minutes.

The reason isn’t that Resolve has a faster video encoder. From what I’ve found, both programs encode at a similar speed. The difference is in what happens during the export process. When you export from Resolve, it creates the final .MP4 or .MOV file directly. The file starts at 0 MB and builds up as the export runs. Premiere, for some reason, creates a large temporary file first, renders the video to that file, and then copies the video from the temporary file to the final exported file.

If you’ve ever copied a large video file from one location on your hard drive to another, you know that can take a while. That extra copying step is where most of Premiere’s additional export time is spent, and it’s completely unnecessary. That said, there’s one area where Premiere holds a big advantage: multitasking while exporting.

With DaVinci Resolve, once you hit Export and head to the Render page, you’re stuck there until it’s done. You can’t go back to editing. Premiere Pro, on the other hand, lets you send your video to Adobe Media Encoder, which renders it in a completely separate program while you keep editing in Premiere. That is genuinely one of my favorite features in the entire Adobe Creative Suite.

If I have a batch of smaller videos to export, I will often choose to edit in Premiere specifically for this reason. Even though Premiere is slower to render, being able to keep editing while it exports means I save more time overall. 

I would love to see Blackmagic build something like Adobe Media Encoder. They already have the Blackmagic Proxy Generator app that renders proxies in the background. Just make it work for full exports too, and they’d be right there.

Winner: Split (Resolve wins on speed, Premiere wins on multitasking)

3. Color Grading

This is where DaVinci Resolve absolutely dominates, and it shouldn’t be a surprise. Resolve was originally built as a world-class color grading program, and editing tools were added on top of that foundation. Getting good color out of it starts before any of that though, with color management, which Resolve can set up in one click.

At a professional level, I have no complaints about Resolve’s color tools. They are still significantly ahead of Premiere Pro. If you want to go deeper on color grading your videos, I’ve put together a collection of LUTs that I use in my own work, which you can check out here.

That said, there is a real caveat: if you’re a beginner, Resolve’s node-based color workflow can be incredibly intimidating. I know plenty of video editors who have refused to even try Resolve because they don’t want to learn nodes. That’s a legitimate barrier.

Premiere Pro, on the other hand, borrowed the slider-based workflow from Adobe Lightroom and brought it into the color panel. Want to adjust exposure, contrast, or saturation? Just drag a slider. It’s intuitive, and beginners can get results quickly without a steep learning curve.

In a perfect world, I’d love to see Premiere continue adding more robust color tools, and I’d love to see Resolve add a simple, beginner-friendly panel with basic sliders right upfront. Put it on the Cut page, Blackmagic. That’s where all the beginner-friendly stuff lives anyway. So many new editors would appreciate it. 

Winner: Split (Resolve wins for pros, Premiere wins for beginners)

4. Text Tools

Pre-warning: this is another area where Premiere Pro pulls ahead, and it’s not especially close. Adding text in Premiere is genuinely a pleasure. Press T on your keyboard, click anywhere on your video, and start typing. You have full control over fonts, shadows, colors, backgrounds, everything, directly from the properties panel. There are even rulers in the playback window to help you align and position your text. It’s fast, it’s intuitive, and I use it constantly.

DaVinci Resolve has been adding more text controls, and credit where it’s due, they keep improving. But I still find myself fighting against Resolve to get my text looking the way I want. It’s not nearly as fast or easy as Premiere, and that friction adds up over the course of an edit. The one area where Resolve does pull ahead is animated captions.

The DaVinci Resolve 20 update added the ability to automatically generate animated captions similar to what you’d see on TikTok, and having that built natively into the program is great. I want to see them keep pushing this forward.

Honestly, CapCut still does captions better than either of these programs, and I’d love to see both Adobe and Blackmagic catch up there. 

Winner: Premiere Pro

5. AI Tools

This is the biggest buzzword across the entire tech industry right now, and both companies have been investing heavily here, but in very different ways. Adobe has added some genuinely impressive features, like a search panel with media intelligence that lets you search for clips by the objects in them, and their Generative Extend tool, which uses AI to lengthen a video clip by up to two seconds or an audio clip by up to 10 seconds.

That’s cool. But right now it feels like it’s still in its infancy. Videos are limited to lower resolutions, and if you look too closely, the glitches and errors in the generated footage are noticeable.

I’ve talked about my feelings on Adobe’s heavy focus on generative AI in a separate video, but the short version is this: it feels like Adobe is pouring resources into generative AI at the expense of the core speed and stability of Premiere Pro.

And on top of that, they’re starting to charge for these features, which feels like a money grab when video editors are already paying a significant monthly subscription for Creative Cloud. Compare that to what Blackmagic has been building with DaVinci Resolve, and it feels like they are genuinely more in tune with what editors actually need.

The Resolve 20 update added an AI multicam switcher that automatically cuts between camera angles based on who’s speaking, similar to a paid plug-in for Premiere called AutoPod. They added an AI audio assistant that mixes all of your spoken dialogue and music with one click. They added an AI beat detector that analyzes your audio and places markers on all the beats. And one of the most impressive additions is AI Voice Convert, which lets you take a person’s voice and generate an AI voice clone of it.

I’m working on a full video about that last feature because it’s so powerful. If a subject says the wrong word or stumbles through a line, you can potentially recreate that line using their own voice with AI. Back in 2016, Adobe actually showed off a similar technology called Project Voco at their MAX conference and then never shipped it.

Here we are nine years later, and Blackmagic said “if you’re not going to do it, we will.” And they did. 

Winner: DaVinci Resolve

Final Score

Here’s how it breaks down: 

DaVinci Resolve wins outright: Stability, AI Tools 

Premiere Pro wins outright: Text Tools 

Split categories: Exporting, Color Grading

Giving each program half a point on the split categories, the final tally comes out to Resolve: 3 points, Premiere: 2 points.

But here’s the thing: that score doesn’t tell the whole story. These aren’t dramatic blowouts in most categories. If Adobe can get Premiere as stable and fast as Resolve, or if Resolve can leapfrog Premiere on ease of adding text, these rankings shift. Both programs are genuinely good, and the right choice depends on what matters most to your specific workflow.

For me personally, I’m going to keep using both. They each have real strengths and real weaknesses, and being comfortable in both gives me flexibility. I’m also planning to get more serious about Final Cut Pro to round things out even further. If you want to get better at editing regardless of which software you’re using, download my free Edit Videos Like a Pro guide. And let me know in the comments which editor you use and which one you think is better in 2025. I’d love to hear where people land on this.