So I have used the H.265 codec on a couple of outings and have looked at the footage compared to the H.264 stuff and honestly I'm struggling to find any difference at all? Is it just a more economical codec i.e you get the same quality for less filesize? or am I missing something. Also I have to re-encode all the H.265 stuff as Premier hasnt (or didnt) have support for it.

Opinions welcome.

Chewie.

Yes  your right ....same quality , smaller file .  With the increase in video streaming on the internet etc H.265 (HEVC ) offers up to 50% storage reduction by encoding at the lowest bit rate while maintaining a high image quality level . The trade off is H.265 requires almost 10x the computing power .
HEVC aka H.265 will eventually  be the norm once the hardware to process it becomes more available , when this will happen who knows ?
personally i would stick to H.264 for now

H265 was made for containers larger than 4k.
You gain nothing from it, and its a pia to work with and edit

I would agree it contemplates larger than 4k video but I would disagree with it not providing any more quality. Nice read here. It uses very different compression techniques that produce a better quality at the same bitrates. And a smaller file which does take horsepower to playback and edit. https://medium.com/advanced-comp ... market-26659303171a

It is difficult to make a subjective assessment of h.265 against h.264 because it is a case of what you don't see, And that is hard to quantify. It does a better job on encoding fine detail which you do not tend to see for the reason that visual faults are obvious, but the lack of them is not.