These images are as close as I could get to compare the two cameras in identical conditions.  There was varying thicknesses of thin cloud the whole time but it evened out over the videos.  Both cameras were set to approximately 40% gain on the same exposure time.  I used a 4x PowerMate with the 482 and a 2.5x PowerMate with the Uranus-C to gain parity of image scale, although I had to scale up the 482 by a small amount to get equal results in the final stacks. Each camera had nine 3,200 frame videos with the best 25% of each video stacked and de-rotated in WinJUPOS. 

On screen the Uranus-C appeared more contrasted than the 482MC although it came out a little the other way round in processing with identical steps.  The Uranus-C is more sensitive overall and more sensitive at the red end of the spectrum than the 482 which is green dominant in the original stacks. Apart from contrast (482 has more) the 482 result was slightly grainier than the Uranus-C and stacked slightly less well in WinJUPOS than the smoother Uranus-C.  Other than that the differences are marginal in these images, showing that both can do an effective job even through what was hazy cloud although steady conditions.   

The 482MC and the Uranus-C are both modern later generation colour cameras with Sony sensors and Sony's Starvis technology.  The 482 has the IMX482 sensor. The Uranus-C is one of the very latest to come along using the IMX585 sensor.  Both cameras have large well depths compared to many other planetary cameras.  The 482 has 5.86mu pixels, the same size as the old 174MM cameras and the Uranus-C has 2.9mu pixels, same size as the 462MC and 290MM cameras but larger sensor and deeper well depth than the 462 and 290 cameras. 

Peter