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

ChrisI wrote:

deploylinux wrote:

The 80d 90Mbps rate is .mov files at 30fps? I think most users, who care about video, are focused on .mp4 format at 60 or 120 fps. Edit at higher frame rate and then render down to 30fps.

80d at 60fps is 60mbps?
M5 at 60fps is 35mbps?

Given that most general streaming videos is under 10mbps and blueray is 40+ mbps...60mbps is probably overkill and 35 mbps should be acceptable for non professional projects.

It depends on how fast the digic 7 processes action and complex scenes. The slower the processor, the more bit rate that is required to compensate. The 80d uses a prior generation processor.

More than that, you can only compare the bitrates if they are using the same style of compression. I've read that ALL-I uses about double the bitrate of IPB for the same perceived video quality. So it could well be to the end user that the 35mpbs M5 is the same as the 60mpbs 80D.

Yes, we're comparing two very different codecs. I think your 2x factor is optimistic, more
like at least 4x.

The difference is (presumably) ALL-I 80D will give a better video to edit and ultimately re-encode to a final video.

All I is quicker to edit with since it's a very simple codec, throw enough bitrate at H264
and it can be the same as All I or better. There's nothing intrinsically better about
All I other than editing performance when other factors such as colourspace, bit depth and colour sub sampling are equal.