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

weixing wrote:

Hi,

The different is basically ALL-I and IPB. Canon EOS M5 video don't have ALL-I option.

Have a nice day.

If that is the case then, Canon is again perfectly judging this for its target audience. I can't see many amateurs/enthusiasts looking to record in ALL-I and having to edit it and reprocess it to get it to a reasonable file size. Obviously it would be nice to have for those occasions when you want the extra detail and the option to post process it yourself with your own choice of settings for H.264

Good bit of detail on it here - http://www.canon.com.hk/cpx/en/technical/va_EOS_Movie_Compression_Options_All_I_and_IPB.html

nnowak wrote:

ChrisI wrote:

weixing wrote:

Hi,

The different is basically ALL-I and IPB. Canon EOS M5 video don't have ALL-I option.

Have a nice day.

If that is the case then, Canon is again perfectly judging this for its target audience.

Which target audience is that? The M5 is in the same price bracket as the 80D, which will shoot ALL-I.

I can't see many amateurs/enthusiasts looking to record in ALL-I and having to edit it and reprocess it to get it to a reasonable file size. Obviously it would be nice to have for those occasions when you want the extra detail and the option to post process it yourself with your own choice of settings for H.264

The M5 is more than capable of shooting ALL-I. This is another case of Canon dropping a feature via a firmware flag solely for artificial market segmentation. Canon doesn't want the M5 to be quite as good as a DSLR, but then they price it the same as a DSLR. If the M5 were a $500 camera, no one would be complaining about missing 80D features.

Good bit of detail on it here - http://www.canon.com.hk/cpx/en/technical/va_EOS_Movie_Compression_Options_All_I_and_IPB.html

Rightly or wrongly, Canon clearly are segmenting it away from competing with their SLRs - namely the 80D. I'll agree on the price point, if its not meant to be competing with SLRs then it should be priced cheaper. WIth the audience they are trying to attract, its clear they've "dumbed down" or "crippled" some of the options to make it easier for more novice users. They probably don't want complains from some users of their 1080p footage taking up their memory card for so little time of recording.

Personally I dont mind it not shooting ALL-I, I can see that it will produce massive files and I'd never be one to edit them and re-encode it back using more "normal" H.264 parameters/settings. Is there really that much difference between video shot using IPB and ALL-I? I can see for proper power users there being some benefit (fast moving objects etc), but for the majority it will just produce massive files.

justmeMN wrote:

nnowak wrote: If the M5 were a $500 camera, no one would be complaining about missing 80D features.

Yes, in a US$980 body, that it disappointing.

I don't think $500,- would have been realistic for a camera with the M5 specification.

It's direct competition is in the 599-799 euro range.

Olympus Em10 mk2

Panasonic GX80/G80

Fujifilm XT-10, X-E2S

Sony A6000

I think with dual pixel AF they could've even ask a bit more. Say the original EM-5 price point of 899,-

Right now it's priced at a ridiculous 1149,- euro's which puts it directly against the Sony A6300. And it's feature set just doesn't come close.

PhotoDiod wrote:

Thanks, everyone, for contributing. Interesting results.

It looks like almost half of the respondents do care about video in M5 and are dissatisfied with the Canon's implementation. Slightly more than half have no use for even 80D-level video in their M5.

Granted, this poll is not scientific in terms of its sample size and sampling methodology. But if it is at least roughly reflective of the enthusiasts' preferences, then Canon seems to either target a different market segment with their mirrorless offering, or they indeed want you to buy their cinema cameras for larger-sensor video. That is nice and dandy, but as an amateur, I cannot afford to pay for and lag around a DSLR and a C100 MII. Besides, the C100 is an overkill for many non-professional users anyway.

Well as it stands the C100mk2 can't be used professionally either at this point.

It can only shoot 1080p with a crappy consumer grade 4:2:0 8-bit Codec.

you'd have to completely out of your mind to even consider one at this point. Especially with the Sony FS5 and Blackmagic Ursa on the market.

So the first serious Canon ILC for video is 16k

the C300mk2

BarnET wrote:

Well as it stands the C100mk2 can't be used professionally either at this point.

It can only shoot 1080p with a crappy consumer grade 4:2:0 8-bit Codec.

you'd have to completely out of your mind to even consider one at this point. Especially with the Sony FS5 and Blackmagic Ursa on the market.

So the first serious Canon ILC for video is 16k

the C300mk2

C100 mk2: uncompressed 4:2:2 signal out of  the HDMI port. Makes all the difference...

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.

marshwader wrote:

BarnET wrote:

Well as it stands the C100mk2 can't be used professionally either at this point.

It can only shoot 1080p with a crappy consumer grade 4:2:0 8-bit Codec.

you'd have to completely out of your mind to even consider one at this point. Especially with the Sony FS5 and Blackmagic Ursa on the market.

So the first serious Canon ILC for video is 16k

the C300mk2

C100 mk2: uncompressed 4:2:2 signal out of the HDMI port. Makes all the difference...

The Fs5 can do 4k 4:2:2 10-bit with a similar set-up. Same can be said about the much cheaper Panasonic GH4

Or have the same 1080p 4:2:2 10-bit with the additional hassle and stuff that can go wrong with external recording.

And last but not least a variable electronic ND instead of the crude C100 solution.

So no it makes no difference It should just be discontinued and replaced with something worthwhile.

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

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.