Why does one documentary look so much higher in quality than the other?

Documentary #1 titled "After Eric":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqhWP7J5-vw

Documentary #2 titled "Growing my Brave":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ap0nJIGmSVw

I know framing, color correction/grading, lighting, audio, crew members skill, depth of field, camera movement/stabilization, and editing techniques can make a work look more high-quality/professional --but why do these two works with seemingly the same amount of effort put into them look so different? The one titled "After Eric" appears more defined and sharp as far as it's image --and seems higher in quality than the still fairly high quality "Growing my Brave" one. The "Growing my Brave" one was filmed with a Canon DSLR I believe, and the "After Eric" one was filmed with a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera. What did the two production teams do differently? What makes them look different outside of what I mentioned? Which looks higher in quality/more professional to you? Am I over exaggerating regarding my opinion? Correct? Slightly correct?

They're both docos, so there's always going to be certain limitations when shooting doco.

Personally, I think the 'Growing my Brave' one overall looks better. Blackmagic shoot ProRes or raw, so are of course going to have likely better dynamic range, be sharper, and have overall better colour tonality.

The two production teams would have done a lot differently to each other. But at the most basic level, in a shot to shot comparison comparing Blackmagic in ProRes or raw, to a 5D in H.264, the Blackmagic will have better colour tonality, be a bit sharper, and have much less compression artifacting.

It also seems like the shots in after Eric had a subject that was more "clean", whereas in the "Growing Up Brave" the shots had a lot more action and density to in the frame (more people, more motion, more stuff) -- which I am sure makes it more difficult.

Honestly, the "Growing Up Brave" looked more polished and professional to me -- but that's more an overall impression than just the cinematography. AE looked like some history channel slot-filler, where as GUB seemed a bit more... "commercial" in feel? I'm not sure how to describe it.