Would you pay more for 1080p in the M5 that is at least as good as in 80D?

Alastair Norcross wrote:

PhotoDiod wrote:

justmeMN wrote:

PhotoDiod wrote:

Alan Sh wrote:

What is better about 80D video?

Bitrate, for one:

So, a higher bitrate means less compression, and therefore higher image quality? Do I have that right?

Unless the newer compression algorithm is eons smarter, that is how I understand it, yes.

Are there any side by side comparisons available on the web, so we can see the difference the different bitrates make to the quality of M5 video versus 80D video? Is it likely to be something we can actually see? I'm thinking of the different compression settings for JPEG stills on most cameras. If you take a shot at the highest quality JPEG setting (lowest compression setting) and another at the next highest quality setting, you won't be able to tell the difference between the shots. I'm talking about the same size shot, just different compression settings. As I understand it, the higher quality JPEG will stand up to editing a bit better, which is the reason to opt for it, as opposed to the higher compression setting (if you don't shoot RAW, of course, which is better than both). If it's similar for video, the different compression settings would only have a visible effect on the end product, if we did a lot of editing to the video. But perhaps I'm missing something.

I have not come across any side-by-side comparisons yet. I would love to see some though. As far as the extent to which compression settings make a difference, it depends both on the amount of the compression and on the subject of the photo/video. The next highest quality setting might not result in visible difference in some subjects but can noticeably worsen the quality of complex scenes with lots of detail, contrast, color nuances, etc. That said, I am not sure that going from 90 mbps to 24 mbps is really only a one step down.