KrisAK

Yes, even at DR100, it looks herky-jerky. Is that somehow usable? There's a difference between saying that it's less bad at DR100, and saying that CAF for video is actually usable.
Also, I find it disturbing that folks seem to be almost preemptively anticipating problems as inevitable; that they'll later be fixed in firmware as part of Fuji's world-class Kaizen.
My understanding is that Kaizen (the Deming cycle, Toyota Production System, call-it-what-you-will) was meant to discover and prevent flaws like this from being pushed into market in the first place; not to fix errors that were sloppily discovered only after the release.
A more accurate term for what Blackmagic, Sony, and now Fuji and others are doing is the well-known strategy of "Release it Now; Fix it Later."
For $1800, I expected more. (And a headphone jack.)

Yes, even at DR100, it looks herky-jerky. Is that somehow usable? There's a difference between saying that it's less bad at DR100, and saying that CAF for video is actually usable.
Also, I find it disturbing that folks seem to be almost preemptively anticipating problems as inevitable; that they'll later be fixed in firmware as part of Fuji's world-class Kaizen.
My understanding is that Kaizen (the Deming cycle, Toyota Production System, call-it-what-you-will) was meant to discover and prevent flaws like this from being pushed into market in the first place; not to fix errors that were sloppily discovered only after the release.
A more accurate term for what Blackmagic, Sony, and now Fuji and others are doing is the well-known strategy of "Release it Now; Fix it Later."
For $1800, I expected more. (And a headphone jack.)

Yes, even at DR100, it looks herky-jerky. Is that somehow usable? There's a difference between saying that it's less bad at DR100, and saying that CAF for video is actually usable.
Also, I find it disturbing that folks seem to be almost preemptively anticipating problems as inevitable; that they'll later be fixed in firmware as part of Fuji's world-class Kaizen.
My understanding is that Kaizen (the Deming cycle, Toyota Production System, call-it-what-you-will) was meant to discover and prevent flaws like this from being pushed into market in the first place; not to fix errors that were sloppily discovered only after the release.
A more accurate term for what Blackmagic, Sony, and now Fuji and others are doing is the well-known strategy of "Release it Now; Fix it Later."
For $1800, I expected more. (And a headphone jack.)

Although the AF speed is waaaay faster with DR100, I think it is not so smooth.
Can anyone else see it or my eyes flipped out? 

I use a Blackmagic Video Assist 4K with the X-T2, and I have to start recording on both the camera and the recorder. If I don't press record on the camera, it sends out a worse quality signal. This step is easy to forget, I'm not sure if they fixed this on the X-H1. Also, when recording for a longer period, you will have thermal noise in your F-Log footage. It was not visible with the built in film simulations, only with F-Log. It basicly looks like a lot of hot pixels, but it's only visible in dark shots. Since the X-H1 manages heat better, I believe you won't have this issue there. The biggest problem with X-T2 is that F-Log is kinda broken, the red channel is very problematic, it breaks very easily, which rendered some my footage almost unusable. I tested F-Log coming from the X-H1 and it is WAY cleaner. This is something noone seems to talk about, I had to find this out myself. Oh and if you use film-simulations, the in-camera recordings will be full range, but when you send it over HDMI, it will be video range, so you'll have slightly less precision, if that matters to you. I can't really recommend an external recorder for the X-T2, but a smaller monitor like the SmallHD Focus can be very useful.

@pszilard The recording limit is there because of the overheating, not any European law, that is why without the grip it does half the recording time (there is not tax for more than 10 minutes video recording!). Fuji uses the similar Sony sensors that is well known and documented that overheat quite a lot (look at a6XXX issues with overheating and "do not touch the camera" warnings and the such).
"it only lets you record up to 10 minutes at once -- unless you have that external grip. The company claims it made that decision in order to keep the camera from overheating"*
Interesting (Velbon-)Octopus setup there! Definitely you do not do a lot of run and gun stuff!
Enjoy your buying.
(* = https://www.engadget.com/2016/10/06/fujifilm-x-t2-review/)

I love fuji and am biased in their favour. I had my cash ready excited to preorder this camera, but I just can't do it. For me, these more consumer cameras are good for getting a good image quickly in scenarios where you don't get a second take and where using my cinema camera would be impractical. If you are going to do long set-up times and many takes, then a cinema camera is better for that type of work.
Those are my criteria, yours may be different, so my judgment is based only these factors: can it take a quick shot? does it have good iq?
For me, it has good ergonomics and ibis, both ticks, but it is missing one crucial factor, and that is good face detect autofocus. What I am hearing from the videos is that it works on occasion. Even if it was at the level of the a6500 I would be fine with that as the ibis implementation is very good. But it seems to me a step behind the a6500. I just don't know at this stage if I can rely on it to get the image. I may be proven wrong but this is a consideration for me.
The second issue I have is with the image quality. Don't get me wrong the colours are great - it's the other factors that have me miffed. Firstly, there appears to be a great degree of digital sharpness that makes the images look videoy. I note the diffusion they used in the professional japanese production to limit this effect. Moreover, the motion cadence is just off and it may have to do, like Andrew said, with the omission of the ALL-I codec. It doesn't look natural to me like for instance a canon or gh5.
So I have decided to pass in this instance and see what canon has in store with their new mirrorless which if the rumours are true shall be 4k, will have ibis and will have autofcus face detect - the holy trinity. And nice colour science that you won't need to grade too much with the crappy 8bit codec they will no doubt give you. I don't mind the eos-m mount as the ef lenses are easily adapted.     

I'll take app and zebras for $200 Jon
 

Seems like a great camera. For me personally a Fuji is a usable stills option in all scenarios I can think of. It rivals FF. Ive shot sports, portraits, doc, you name it with a X-Pro2 or X-T20.
So the stills department is in the bag. Not as a compromise but top notch imo.
If the intended usage of video is 50% or lower it is a great camera and I would probably love it. For something like 70% video I guess a GH5 would make more sense but anything higher than that and I rather have two cameras, one dedicated for video. But that's just me.

Yes I agree 100% but the problem is - they spent $400 million on making and marketing it as fodder for the masses.
Grossly overrated the reach and popularity of the source material.
The budget of the film was $155 million after tax rebates and other stuff. The marketing effort was HUGE.
They better hope the long term outlook is good for it... I think it will be... It'll stand up well in 5, 10, 20 years.

Vimeo is as bad or worse than YouTube in my experience, so I don't agree with the "you get what you pay for, and YouTube is worse than Vimeo because it is free and Vimeo is not." I have the PRO account on Vimeo, and EVERY ONE of the videos I uploaded to Vimeo turned out to be similar to or worse than on YouTube, so I just don't get what you guys are talking about. To be sure, there are other benefits (no ads, can replace video, have custom links, etc.), but WRT to picture quality I don't see any benefit.
If you guys can show a single example of the exact SAME FILE uploaded to YouTube and Vimeo, with Vimeo generating better PQ, I'd love to see it.

Canon needs someone like Kazuto Yamaki (CEO @ Sigma). Just someone who's genuinely passionate about photography, quality and the business in general. Some that knows his stuff.
 
Maybe he should give Canon a masterclass on business management and integrity. If you want a great appreciation for Sigma, and how it's run, then watch these vids. Canon... go watch 'em too.
Maybe the big guys over at Panasonic might pick up a thing or two as well, like in terms of presentation and coming across that you know your company and products through and through... though, without that we wouldn't have the priceless expression of Sean at 1:00. Atleast he gets the importance of 4K.
 

I didn't go refurb, I got mine from a private seller on ebay and verified it had the AppleCare. Took a few tries before I finally won at $2k. I wanted the i7/4gb vram/1tb ssd setup because I made the permanent move to 4k and started stitching large raw panos on the stills side - until last week's announcement that was the most powerful iMac config you could get. I added the 32gb ram as well, so my total cost is another $300. Tough for me to say what the difference between a i5 and i7 will be when working, someone with more knowledge will have to chime in. But I will say I am traveling the world and editing 4k over the next year with FCPx on a tiny 1.2ghz core M5 processor, 1.5gb on board video ram and just 8gb ram - the 12" MacBook is basically an iPad Pro with a keyboard. Again, I don't use proxies because its time consuming to generate them. I just take my time cutting and let it export when I'm doing something else.
Cheers
chris

There is no simple answer since video editing and codecs span a wide range. H264 1080p can be edited natively with good performance using either Premiere or FCPX on most machines. You don't need a top-end CPU or GPU for this.
OTOH most H264 4k codecs are difficult to edit, even on top-end machines, and often require transcoding to proxy for smoothest editing. Exceptions are H264 4k codecs like Canon's XF-AVC Intra, that is very fast to edit. There can also be a big difference between (say) Premiere and FCPX, especially on a Mac. In general FCPX is considerably more responsive, especially for editing H264 4k. It is about 4x faster exporting to H264 since it uses Quick Sync and Premiere does not. However Premiere has gotten faster the last year or so, even without proxy, which it now also has.
That's the editing; effects are different. No matter how lightweight the codec, a computationally-intensive effect must be calculated for each 4k frame. Effects can be implemented entirely in the CPU, entirely in the GPU or a mixture of both. Some effects like Neat Video allow CPU vs GPU rendering, a mix of both and how many CPU cores to use. 
In general 4k is really difficult to edit. From a CPU standpoint the more (and faster) cores the better. An i7 iMac can be significantly faster than an i5 iMac of the same generation because (1) the CPU clock is faster, and (2) hyperthreading. The current iMac 27 the i7 is about 11% faster just from clock speed. Benefit from hyperthreading varies widely. I used the 3rd party CPUSetter utility to disable/enable hyperthreading on an i7 iMac, and this made about 30% difference in FCPX export speed to H264. For other tasks such Lightroom import and preview generation, it made no difference.
Re Radeon 580, I haven't see any good benchmarks yet. However only certain tasks are amenable to GPU acceleration, e.g, H264 encode/decode cannot be meaningfully accelerated. The core algorithm is inherently sequential and not amenable to applying hundreds of lightweight GPU threads. But in general software developers increasingly try to leverage the GPU where possible. You can't update the GPU in an iMac so I'd tend to get the fastest one available.

Nice writeup.
I probably shouldn't take the bait, but 6-10-21 sound biblical:
Ephesians 6:10-21 (Armour of God):
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Or not.

Yeah, it's a reach. The quasi-religious element of the book (Mercerism?) was absent from first movie; I keep hoping it might pop-up somewhere in this... 

Nice writeup.
I probably shouldn't take the bait, but 6-10-21 sound biblical:
Ephesians 6:10-21 (Armour of God):
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."
Or not.

I love it, gorgeous image and colors.
I was taking out some old b-roll for my latest YouTube video the other day. And it wasn't the first time I went, "Wow! Which camera did I shoot this on?" and it turning out to be the XC10.

This is really welcome as I've been using Apple computers for work since 1989 and for the first time since a rough patch in the early 90s I've been seriously beginning to wonder about moving away from them. During that time I shudder to think how machines I've bought. There's been some real lemons (an Apple IIvx was probably one of my worst ever computer purchases) but also more than enough wonderful machines that paid for themselves many times over. However, its becoming obvious though that under Tim Cook that they've become a relatively risk averse mobile phone company to whom computers have become something of a distraction. The computers they do now make are targeted at either families (the iMac) or Apple execs (the new MacbookPro) who value light weight, battery life and never need to transfer anything much bigger than a financial report or a keynote presentation. The old joke that if all you have is a hammer then every problem resembles a nail couldn't be more appropriate to Johnny Ive's recent creations, his hammer is an odd obsession with looks, thickness and weight at the expense of the old it just works out of the box philosophy. (My current waste bin MacPro (6,1) doesn't just work without a really annoying mess of expensive external hard drives, dongles and third party cables. Its basically a souped up Mac Mini or a laptop without a keyboard or monitor)

From my point of view the most worrying thing as a result of this change in attitude in the past few years is they've quietly dropped pretty much their entire professional line up and features. The Mac Pro as a modular machine, the 17" pro laptop, the Mac mini, X Servers, the 30" monitor, matt screens on iMacs and laptops etc etc have all gone. Software is being dumbed down for iOS - Aperture has gone and iPhoto is now the the iOS photo app. Keynote is a shadow of its former self. Even my spell checker on my Macs now seems to assume I'm on an iOS device and I'm never looking down at a keyboard and 'helpfully' inserts word changes without me realising. Agh!

I thought they might turn things around with the new MacBook Pro and I was awaiting it with some trepidation as if it was a compelling graphics machine I'd have probably gone and splurged on it (that would have really dented my cashflow!). I needn't have worried though... What we got was a machine aimed at an exec to wave around on a flight or in boardroom or perhaps a senior software person. (Apple designing for themselves perhaps? Interestingly when I was chatting about it to an Apple bod in one of their shops he quietly confided that he was waiting for it too but had changed his mind and bought one of the previous models they still had in stock on the day of its release. (The previous models sold out pretty quickly after that!)
I think the response to the MacBook pro has panicked them and suspect they've rushed out a speed bump to the MacPro ("Look, look we're doing something!) and have promised that professional iMacs(!) are imminent. But most telling is that they've pre-announced a new modular Mac Pro at least year in advance! Yes, pre-announced it! When has that ever happened before? (That'll kill even the new speed bumped MacPro stone dead!) That to me is a touch of panic.
 
 

Panasonic can shuffle around their company as much as they like, but until they offer colour science on par with Canon and Nikon, a log profile that is useable and good video AF, i stand by my switch from the GH line to an 8bit 1080 camera (C100Mkii) and for small body 4K an XC10. 

I just spent the past year chasing specs, and although I learned a lot, my footage isn't much better than it was when I was just shooting with my eos-m... I was just chasing that elusive resolution.
I know you've been looking for a camera to shoot your next feature with, if I were you, I would just grab the C100 mkii or C300 mkii and be done with it. You know they'll be reliable and the cinematic look is built into their color science.
And honestly, I still watch most movies on a 720p JVC, so what do I know... It looks good to me. 

Dual-pixel focus would be the only thing (at the moment, anyway) that that would make me consider an upgrade.

DPreview is just a communal front porch leading to Amazon. Anything driving traffic away is probably viewed a threat, though for their own sake (i.e. maintaining the illusion of editorial integrity) you'd think they'd leave it up.
Dumb move by DPreview.

DPreview is just a communal front porch leading to Amazon. Anything driving traffic away is probably viewed a threat, though for their own sake (i.e. maintaining the illusion of editorial integrity) you'd think they'd leave it up.
Dumb move by DPreview.

DPreview is just a communal front porch leading to Amazon. Anything driving traffic away is probably viewed a threat, though for their own sake (i.e. maintaining the illusion of editorial integrity) you'd think they'd leave it up.
Dumb move by DPreview.