Axel

From interviews it seems the dummy battery is included.

The 18105 is a fantastic lens for all it's features, perfect for AF (almost no breathing), smooth zooms (seems to be parfocal or almost), and despite the focal ranges rather lightweight. If it's your only lens, you are probably very happy with it. If you buy a second lens you might notice that it's not very sharp. That's a pity. It is cheap, but had there been a version for, say, $1000, with better optical quality, it would be perfect.

Didn't check if the RAM is depleted when using Neat, but there ab-so-lutely is no real time, not with Optimized Media and not with viewer set to Better Performance. Render times are also the longest ever. I wouldn't use proxies for Neat, with noise being one of the things I wouldn't want to judge in quarter resolution. Proxies are better for multicam (you can check in preferences) or if you have to save disk space abroad. Otherwise (depending on CPU and Quicksynch or not) I'd use Original / Optimized. Note, that you can't choose to view one over the other once both appear in inspector under Available Media Representation. On the long run, ProRes will work better than H.264. If you are not only performing simple cuts.
A few more basic tips:
1. Watch One Smart Collection To Rule Them All. Since this MASTER ACCESS collection lives in the new library, you'd have to create it every time anew. To facilitate this, I made an empty library with just my OSCTRTA, I call it FILTER (german for filter) and exported an XML. You can download it here. You double-click it to open FCP X.
2. Learn shortcuts, also those for navigation. See Editing At The Speed Of Thought for inspiration, and imagine how long it would have taken if he had just used the mouse.
3. Use the new workspaces. I made my own ones. I resized the windows for Organize and Color & Effects (scopes opened, viewer very big). I even made my custom workspaces the default shortcuts (cmd shift 1 & cmd shift 2), but that's a "hack", I tell you only if you can't stand to have to use the menu anymore. 
4. Make your own shortcuts. Two I use very often are set volume to silence ("0" - zero) and automatic speed (conform clip framerate to project framerate, ctrl cmd r).
5. If you encounter any problems and you can't google them, send feedback to Apple. There are bugs, and there is no point in tolerating them.
 

I edit lots of H264 4k on a 2015 iMac 27 using FCPX. Using proxy and deferring Neat Video to the very last step is best. Also jcs had excellent advice about limiting use of Neat Video. If you haven't use proxy before, this will produce huge performance gains during the edit phase. Before the final export, you must switch it back to optimized/original, else the exported file will be at proxy resolution. That final export will be no faster but all the editing prior to that will be faster.
However I'm not sure just adding 16GB more RAM is the solution. It sounds like a possible memory leak from either a bug in plugin or FCPX itself. Pursuing that is a step-by-step process of elimination and repeated testing, e.g, eliminate all effects then selectively add them back until the problem happens.
Starting with 10.3.x, there is a new feature to remove all effects from all clips. So you can duplicate the project, then remove all effects from the duplicate then add them back selectively: 
https://support.apple.com/kb/PH12615?locale=en_US

Didn't check if the RAM is depleted when using Neat, but there ab-so-lutely is no real time, not with Optimized Media and not with viewer set to Better Performance. Render times are also the longest ever. I wouldn't use proxies for Neat, with noise being one of the things I wouldn't want to judge in quarter resolution. Proxies are better for multicam (you can check in preferences) or if you have to save disk space abroad. Otherwise (depending on CPU and Quicksynch or not) I'd use Original / Optimized. Note, that you can't choose to view one over the other once both appear in inspector under Available Media Representation. On the long run, ProRes will work better than H.264. If you are not only performing simple cuts.
A few more basic tips:
1. Watch One Smart Collection To Rule Them All. Since this MASTER ACCESS collection lives in the new library, you'd have to create it every time anew. To facilitate this, I made an empty library with just my OSCTRTA, I call it FILTER (german for filter) and exported an XML. You can download it here. You double-click it to open FCP X.
2. Learn shortcuts, also those for navigation. See Editing At The Speed Of Thought for inspiration, and imagine how long it would have taken if he had just used the mouse.
3. Use the new workspaces. I made my own ones. I resized the windows for Organize and Color & Effects (scopes opened, viewer very big). I even made my custom workspaces the default shortcuts (cmd shift 1 & cmd shift 2), but that's a "hack", I tell you only if you can't stand to have to use the menu anymore. 
4. Make your own shortcuts. Two I use very often are set volume to silence ("0" - zero) and automatic speed (conform clip framerate to project framerate, ctrl cmd r).
5. If you encounter any problems and you can't google them, send feedback to Apple. There are bugs, and there is no point in tolerating them.
 

A year ago I bought the biggest 5k iMac, with the fastest CPU and the biggest GPU - but I didn't yet upgrade the 8 GB RAM (wanted to do that with third party RAM, because it's cheaper). Biggest library contained roughly 1 TB of footage, biggest project since then was 18 minutes (not long, I know, but rather complicated with compounds and subtitles). Never felt a bottleneck. Until then, I used to have a 2009 MacPro with 32 GB RAM, eventually. At the time I built in the new RAM I expected a significant improvement, but there was none! I guess the main bottleneck of this computer was i/o. Couldn't go over ~ 200 Mbits read speed. For 4k, particularly with ProRes, it should be at least twice as fast. Check that (the volume with your footage).
In my experience, Neat is a real real time killer. Should you turn it off (the checkbox in inspector)? I wouldn't. I would make CC the last step in the workflow. After you locked the edit. You could then turn on background rendering, or, if there are not too many clips with Neat, render them individually.
Another trick for improving performance is to limit the number of clips your Mac has to access all at once. In the browser by filtering. I never see more than 50 clips, mostly much less. In the timeline by splitting up the whole into shorter sequences (=projects). 
"A five minute clip" looks short enough, indeed too short to structure it any further. But it can be advisable too. 
Maybe in part because the media management frightens them off?
 

Actually the reason i upgraded my ram to 32 Gb was the lengthy projects i work on (usually tv shows). If you are working on 5 min projects or Vlogs (and you have bkgr render off) you won't see any difference. Every time you are tweaking a single clip in any way, a low quality preview clip is loaded into ram to smooth out playback (background render does the same but using ProRes HQ or any other intermediate codec, so your memory gets full faster). When you are out off ram, for example on a lengthy project, FCPX is throwing these data on you hard disk and is streaming from there, so you are experiencing lags on your playback. It's easy to know when you need a ram upgrade and thats when you see your mac's performance slowing down as you are progressing with your project. 
& Also: Never leave Libraries loaded on your FCPX's browser. It's important to have a single Library (the one which you are working on) opened ONLY. These are data that are also loaded into your ram and slow down your machine for no reason.

Turning background rendering off always helps, since FCPX loves throwing everything into ram. Leave everything un-rendered until you export your project. This won't affect your final render times dramatically from my experience. Proxy media are handy for 4K editing & multicams, but you need to switch to optimised or original media to color correct so it's inevitable to work on line before exporting to see what you are doing. NEAT is wonderful but kinda processor and ram hungry as it's output goes also directly into ram, so again switching off bkgr render helps. Also switch playback to "better performance". When you have no effects applied and you are working with ProRes, as you do, FCPX effectively streams data directly from your scratch disk, so an external ssd is a must for your libraries. According to your mac's specs you can choose through your workflow which part of your machine will carry the heaviest tasks, so if you have a weak processor for example, transcode H264 to optimised media, throw tour library on an external disk and turn off background rendering. Try these and if you have problems then upgrade your Ram to 32 gigs.

A year ago I bought the biggest 5k iMac, with the fastest CPU and the biggest GPU - but I didn't yet upgrade the 8 GB RAM (wanted to do that with third party RAM, because it's cheaper). Biggest library contained roughly 1 TB of footage, biggest project since then was 18 minutes (not long, I know, but rather complicated with compounds and subtitles). Never felt a bottleneck. Until then, I used to have a 2009 MacPro with 32 GB RAM, eventually. At the time I built in the new RAM I expected a significant improvement, but there was none! I guess the main bottleneck of this computer was i/o. Couldn't go over ~ 200 Mbits read speed. For 4k, particularly with ProRes, it should be at least twice as fast. Check that (the volume with your footage).
In my experience, Neat is a real real time killer. Should you turn it off (the checkbox in inspector)? I wouldn't. I would make CC the last step in the workflow. After you locked the edit. You could then turn on background rendering, or, if there are not too many clips with Neat, render them individually.
Another trick for improving performance is to limit the number of clips your Mac has to access all at once. In the browser by filtering. I never see more than 50 clips, mostly much less. In the timeline by splitting up the whole into shorter sequences (=projects). 
"A five minute clip" looks short enough, indeed too short to structure it any further. But it can be advisable too. 
Maybe in part because the media management frightens them off?
 

Inspiring. Looks pretty simple. Most of the time, the horizontal rod lies just loosely on his shoulder. Makes me think of the big box full of cheap rig parts I've gathered over the years (parts from India or China). Kept because they are worthless anyway and because I thought, who knows?, they might come in handy one day. The center piece somehow reminds me of something:

... maybe some connection of my old U-flycam up in the attic?

Speaking of improvements (didn't feel like opening a whole other thread) and carrying bigger loads, ha, now here's a nifty idea!
~ https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/firstsparkgear/daisho-turn-your-camera-gimbal-into-a-shoulder-rig  | http://www.firstsparkgear.com/daisho/ ( via )
Reducing two major problems of handheld (pistol grip/dual handle) stabilizers... all the heavy load on your arms, creating muscle exhaustion and up/down bouncing movement. Not too shabby.

What most people forget is that the native FCPX colour tools are for colour correction. They're not grading tools and have never claimed to be - the effect is even called "color corrector". I do correction with the native tools first (I especially love the 3 saturation sliders for darks, mids and lights 0 Colour Finale can't even do that). Then I use Color Finale (largely just for the curves and often the awesome vector tool to grade and Film Convert last for final touches.
I do think Apple should add curves to the native tools though. It would save me a lot of time in the long run as sometimes I only use Color Finale for curves

Actually it's just another representation of the color range, like an earth map compared to a globe. Once you get accustomed to it, it's even more intuitive to use. I always complained about the 0-100% acuity of the sliders. In the end, if fast CC is asked for, this can be an advantage. I am defending it only to this extend. Apart from the quick wysiwyg-approach, it feels too much like iMovie. They should make the tool more precise. You probably heard that the Dashwood effects (360°/VR-tools - a hint for 10.4? - , but some other FxFactory products too) recently became free, because Dashwood was hired by Apple. I installed them and tried White Balance. Too simple. Already existed within the color board (it just doesn't tell you how much in Kelvin you had shifted the balance), like the majority of third party CC-tools. 
The color board also has the advantage of being as well an effect as a clip property. If you open the color board window with cmd 6, you can jump from clip to clip in your sequence, and the Color effect is automatically applied to every clip you changed. I see Color Finale as something in between the color board and Resolve. More precise than the first, but not as powerful as the latter.

Arguably. Depends. A shorter handle is easier to hold with one hand, whereas a longer one (or prolonged, i.e. with folded table tripod) is easier to hold with both hands - for occasions when you don't move much with a heavy camera/lens or in inverted mode. The same is true for the dual handle. Useful for certain shots, not so much for others. I experiment a lot. Screwed the Zhiyun on a monopod, screwed a hook at the other end, hung my camera bag on it as a counter weight and had a makeshift crane indeed. Wondered how to perform the perfect dolly shot on my parquet floor - too uneven for a Pico dolly, as I had learned before. I stuck a soft broom at the end of the monopod and shoved it gently (instead of wheels). Not a brushless gimbal any more ;-)
Version 2 looks like an improvement. Still happy with mine, but for those who still don't have one it could be better to wait. Battery life of 12 hours seems to me kind of overkill. 

Arguably. Depends. A shorter handle is easier to hold with one hand, whereas a longer one (or prolonged, i.e. with folded table tripod) is easier to hold with both hands - for occasions when you don't move much with a heavy camera/lens or in inverted mode. The same is true for the dual handle. Useful for certain shots, not so much for others. I experiment a lot. Screwed the Zhiyun on a monopod, screwed a hook at the other end, hung my camera bag on it as a counter weight and had a makeshift crane indeed. Wondered how to perform the perfect dolly shot on my parquet floor - too uneven for a Pico dolly, as I had learned before. I stuck a soft broom at the end of the monopod and shoved it gently (instead of wheels). Not a brushless gimbal any more ;-)
Version 2 looks like an improvement. Still happy with mine, but for those who still don't have one it could be better to wait. Battery life of 12 hours seems to me kind of overkill. 

Bought a book for Affinity. Found, that almost everything is covered. No one should subscribe to PS if he doesn't already know it, he should start with Affinity. Some things work better (for me) like refining masks. However, there is one thing I don't like: updating changes is slow. I mainly use PS for raw stills. ACR has a page with HSL sliders (don't know the name off the cuff) where I practically "grade" my whole image. Didn't find that particular tool in Affinity Develop. But who knows, perhaps this is just the famous quest for the blue button ...

I subscribe to Photoshop (13 €) although I have Affinity. And I have After Effects (24 €) although I also have Motion. Both Adobe applications I know since almost 20 years. AAE is ridiculously old-fashioned and has a terrible UI, but the thing is: I know this UI like I know the back of my hand. What about integration, dynamic link? Not a big issue. I can pre-compose everything in FCP X as compounds as part of the sequence. Since a compound is also a project of it's own, I can XML it over to AAE (I use X2CC for that, 50 € once, not sure if this was even necessary), render there, re-import it (name of the compound) and connect the finished result over the compound. Should anything change later on in the edit, I alter the compound, asf.
I guess the same thing could be done with Resolve, since Resolve also knows compounds. The NLE has to be about performance and stability, not about a thousand features. Adobe has maneuvered Premiere to a dead end in this respect. In 2009, 2010 they had been very successful with the mercury engine. 
Other NLEs, like Edius and FCP X, used - and continue to use - every dirty trick to improve performance. Premieres 2015's proxy workflow was awkwardly and half-heartedly integrated. As if editing non-natively was a shame. Even the free Resolve had that thought out waaay better:
I fully understand the frustration. GH5 10-bit footage not supported and such things. I also understand that people like to use the NLE they know best. So go the Rocky Mountains route or wrap to MXF. But nobody is forced to pay monthly for a product he feels is becoming a PITA.

Bought a book for Affinity. Found, that almost everything is covered. No one should subscribe to PS if he doesn't already know it, he should start with Affinity. Some things work better (for me) like refining masks. However, there is one thing I don't like: updating changes is slow. I mainly use PS for raw stills. ACR has a page with HSL sliders (don't know the name off the cuff) where I practically "grade" my whole image. Didn't find that particular tool in Affinity Develop. But who knows, perhaps this is just the famous quest for the blue button ...

Had there been space left for other people to make it into the frame? I recently saw a doc on Brian De Palma, he said he always shot complicated action sequences with at least two, sometimes three cameras. But of course: he can repeat the shot, you can't. What I particularly like about wedding videos shot with many cameras is that people behave so naturally. And the real-time feeling only a seamless multicam edit can provide, like the best live-TV ceremonies. If you fluently cut from a medium shot to a close up of the rings. Or the kiss. It's so emotional. With one or even two cameras you are so limited. Total failure. Sad.

Had there been space left for other people to make it into the frame? I recently saw a doc on Brian De Palma, he said he always shot complicated action sequences with at least two, sometimes three cameras. But of course: he can repeat the shot, you can't. What I particularly like about wedding videos shot with many cameras is that people behave so naturally. And the real-time feeling only a seamless multicam edit can provide, like the best live-TV ceremonies. If you fluently cut from a medium shot to a close up of the rings. Or the kiss. It's so emotional. With one or even two cameras you are so limited. Total failure. Sad.

Had there been space left for other people to make it into the frame? I recently saw a doc on Brian De Palma, he said he always shot complicated action sequences with at least two, sometimes three cameras. But of course: he can repeat the shot, you can't. What I particularly like about wedding videos shot with many cameras is that people behave so naturally. And the real-time feeling only a seamless multicam edit can provide, like the best live-TV ceremonies. If you fluently cut from a medium shot to a close up of the rings. Or the kiss. It's so emotional. With one or even two cameras you are so limited. Total failure. Sad.

Probably the WB of my camera is not correct anyway. I read somewhere it wasn't neutral, and people kept fiddling with WB shifts deep in the menu. Since it's Easter, let me cite he Bible: you shall know them by their fruits. What they present as the results of their deeds needs further corrections in post in order not to look weird, some scallop it with special luts. 
I use sun, shadow, clouds or bulb, which already is twice as precise as analog photography was with tungsten and daylight film (okay, some used glass conversion filters for in-between values, some welcomed minor casts because they captured the atmosphere of the place, some corrected in the darkroom, does that sound familiar?). People make all their colors look neutral with custom WB. Afterwards they complain that their colors look aseptic and digital and apply a look lut that mimics film. 

Probably the WB of my camera is not correct anyway. I read somewhere it wasn't neutral, and people kept fiddling with WB shifts deep in the menu. Since it's Easter, let me cite he Bible: you shall know them by their fruits. What they present as the results of their deeds needs further corrections in post in order not to look weird, some scallop it with special luts. 
I use sun, shadow, clouds or bulb, which already is twice as precise as analog photography was with tungsten and daylight film (okay, some used glass conversion filters for in-between values, some welcomed minor casts because they captured the atmosphere of the place, some corrected in the darkroom, does that sound familiar?). People make all their colors look neutral with custom WB. Afterwards they complain that their colors look aseptic and digital and apply a look lut that mimics film. 

There are few contemporary feature length films I find interesting. No matter if it's mainstream or independent (or just independently produced but aiming for mass market), the patterns of the narrations seem to be final by now. You can tell every variation and theoretically give them names (like Kansas City Shuffle? ), you can watch the storylines develop and always stay ahead, because you've seen them all. This is not "inherent" (Inherent Vice, that was a crazy film and one of the exceptions, PTA has the mindset of a 70's filmmaker who questioned everything. Thousands of good films from everywhere over the world from this period), it's because mainstream audiences demand mainstream entertainment, and films are expensive. Short films and series can be more daring, for different reasons. And docs too.
A novel consists of words. The story must be told in such a way (style, structure) that the reader sees his own personal movie. There is a word for this in german, Kopfkino, literally head cinema, when someones' words trigger an intense scene in your imagination. I'd say that reading a novel engages me more than watching a film, and not because the author is more talented than he filmmaker. Books are not too popular anymore, you'd write for very few. But unless someone exceptionally talented re-invents cinema and creates a mainstream masterpiece, you also shoot for very few.

There are few contemporary feature length films I find interesting. No matter if it's mainstream or independent (or just independently produced but aiming for mass market), the patterns of the narrations seem to be final by now. You can tell every variation and theoretically give them names (like Kansas City Shuffle? ), you can watch the storylines develop and always stay ahead, because you've seen them all. This is not "inherent" (Inherent Vice, that was a crazy film and one of the exceptions, PTA has the mindset of a 70's filmmaker who questioned everything. Thousands of good films from everywhere over the world from this period), it's because mainstream audiences demand mainstream entertainment, and films are expensive. Short films and series can be more daring, for different reasons. And docs too.
A novel consists of words. The story must be told in such a way (style, structure) that the reader sees his own personal movie. There is a word for this in german, Kopfkino, literally head cinema, when someones' words trigger an intense scene in your imagination. I'd say that reading a novel engages me more than watching a film, and not because the author is more talented than he filmmaker. Books are not too popular anymore, you'd write for very few. But unless someone exceptionally talented re-invents cinema and creates a mainstream masterpiece, you also shoot for very few.