I don't have an example, but from experience, I can tell you that shooting H.265 on the Sony FX3/6 is a lot nicer than on my Nikon Z9s, where it's too compressed/low bitrate, has too much NR applied, etc. So I've been shooting N-RAW 8K24p & N-RAW 4K60p/120p, not just because I prefer the detail and flexibility in post (white balance & exposure corrections, & shooting 8K for 4K delivery produces very nice oversampled 4K and gives me room to punch in with zero resolution loss), but because I can't stand the H.265 implementation. So it varies from camera to camera. Although I myself prefer RAW, my ideal camera would also offer high bitrate H.265 and ProRes codecs with minimal NR and sharpening, and make these two very user-configurable too. It seems we now have too many cameras with either very high bit rate codecs or very low ones. There's nothing in the middle, really, that's nice and flexible in the post. See the new Nikon ZR as an example. And I'd settle for 6K over 8K. 6K is plenty for punching in, stabilizing, etc., in post for 4K delivery.