BTM_Pix

A refreshingly violent camera test that !
I've been using the Camranger system for a few years to set up behind the goal cameras for football matches. The max tripod height you can use is 10cm so its a massive plus to not have to lie on the usually wet ground to frame the shot and it also wirelessly sends the images to the laptop so you don't have to wait till half or full time to retrieve your images and wire them.
I've also been using the Panasonic app this week with the G7 for vlogging stuff  and its a boon for people like me that are too blind to see the fold out screen when they're doing a piece to camera and too vain to wear their glasses on screen. Oh and for setting exposure and all that stuff as well.
The app is good with cameras like FZ1000 with servo zoom as you can control that as well. Panasonic actually do a remote pan/tilt head that can be controlled by it as well for the full PTZ experience but for reasons best known to themselves it only works with a really limited range of their camcorders.
The Osmo Plus is good in that respect as with the zoom it does make a decent little remote system if you stick it on a tripod. Which is a bit arse backwards for a gimbal but there you go.
 

The dummy battery solution will let you do that though as long as your rechargeable power bank can output 9v as well as USB.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Computers-Accessories/Lanparte-Coupler-Battery-Panasonic-DMC-GH3/B00LHNBF08/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1490621048&sr=8-2&keywords=gh4+dummy+battery
If you want to take a couple of batteries that you can recharge off the USB port of the power bank as well then these are ideal 
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Newmowa-Charger-Panasonic-DMW-BLF19-DMC-GH3/dp/B00Z65W732/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1490621097&sr=8-2&keywords=gh4+usb+charger
I have sets of these for most of my different camera types velcroed into a tray running off a multi output USB charger so I can be charging all of them off one outlet.
Then when I'm going away its just a question of pulling the right chargers out of the tray and I can recharge batteries off the usb outlet of my laptop or a regular iPhone charger. Saves a ton of space and hassle.
 

Exhibit A !
8 chargers for simultaneous charging of 16 batteries with storage for charged and need charging, all off one mains outlet and fits in a tray the size of a kitchen drawer.
They all sit on a strip of velcro so can be detached easily for travel.
Total cost was around £90 with an average of about £9 per battery charger and I think roughly £25 for the USB distributor and cables. Plus £2 for the plastic tray obviously! 
It was worth it for the lack of clutter alone and having to root through bags to find chargers and batteries all the time.

I have mine set at a nominal ISO with 180deg shutter angles for the different frame rates and auto WB so its an advantage to me as it means I never have to remember to change to the correct shutter speed when switching between modes, which I was always forgetting to do!
But I can see your point why it doesn't work for you.
The manual seems to say you can map the VFR to a Fn button and it will bring the menu up when pressed but thats not letting you set it directly to the FPS you want at a single stroke is it. It will save you a menu press, a scroll to the video settings and a scroll to the VFR function so thats something I guess.

This pack contains a dummy battery for GH4 that you can connect to a rechargeable power bank that outputs 9v
Alternatively most recent Panasonic camcorders can be USB powered
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ex-Pro®-Replacement-Panasonic-DMW-AC8EB-DMW-DCC12/dp/B00EF7J91U/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1490548051&sr=1-2&keywords=gh4+power

I honestly think in 2-3 years time when we are all done to death with cobbling together different lenses and bodies and interfaces and all the other hooch looking for perfect systems then we'll all end up buying camcorders again.
The XC10/15 has a lot going for it in this respect. 
Everyone I know who has been sceptical about it and tried it has found it quite liberating to just have a one box solution that - when you look beyond the specs - just makes decent images and makes them without fuss. 
Obviously they aren't without their issues as you'll find if you have a search on here so whether this iteration of the concept is the right one at the right time I don't know.
Canon have the wherewithal to make a Super 35 version of it with L optics with a constant 2.8 with a FF equivalent (not that old chestnut) of 18 to 300mm, retail it for 5K and it would probably be the last camera most of us would need or buy. Which of course is precisely why they won't do it! 
I tell you who might though and that's JVC if they used the LS300 as a basis. 
I've been using a G7 effectively as a camcorder this week with just one small zoom lens on it and relishing the speed and simplicity of the restriction rather than fretting about it.
So, yes, I think if you just want to get and shoot do what you've described then the XC10/15 is not going to get in your way. In that regard, it has to be a smart choice!
But....
If you're in that area, I'd also take a good look at the Panasonic FZ2000.
Its a lot cheaper, faster lens (at the long end), much longer reach, has NDs, LOG, 5 axis IS, 10 bit very good stills extraction, much cheaper media, 10 bit 4:2:2 HDMI out....
The downside is that in 4K, its cropped to about 35mm FF equivalent (here we go again) which may or may not be a deal breaker for your application.
 

There doesn't seem to be any software solutions but using an Atomos Samurai or some such would be a good solution.
In a twin monitor setup running Photoshop, you'd have one monitor with all the tools on and the second monitor full screen of the image that you're editing. 
Loop this second screen through to the Samurai so it will be seeing exactly what's on that screen and you simultaneously have full real time histogram, vectorscope, RGB parade etc on the Samurai.
It would actually be a neat system as you could mount the Samurai between the two monitors or above them or wherever and of course it serves double duty as a field recorder and monitor. And its a completely free system if you already own one
Blackmagic do their Ultrascope system but its got issues with USB3 compatibility and would require come cobbling together to use it with one PC (basically you'd have to set up the PC to think it had 3 screens) and its also more expensive anyway than the Samurai.
My logic in this instance would be to say that if I was going to spend $575 on the Blackmagic product anyway then I'd effectively be getting paid $80 to buy the Atomos one !
Or, more likely, I'd say that I was getting the shiny new 4K Ninja Inferno (which also does that stuff of course) for a bargain $420
Good overview of the scope functionality of the Atomos products here :
 

Can't believe its still on back order considering that fella seemed to get his in 1943.

OK, I've done a basic little test.
Its tricky to do it exactly equivalent because of lens variances etc and my range of X mount lenses is limited compared to my Nikons but anyway.
The test 'scene' was a bedroom with a tiny fragment of outside light, an empty clear mineral water bottle stood on a beige duvet cover with a plain light coloured wall behind. 
So it was low light and not much for the AF to grab hold of as the more distinct contrast points were the creases on the duvet cover!
The illumination level at the bottle was 2 lux according to my Sekonic.
Exposure for the cameras was ISO 12800, f3.2, 1/50th.
On the D500 I used a Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f2.8G ED FX and on the XT-2 the closest thing I've got to that which is the XF18-55 f2.8-4.
Not doing the Fuji any favours really by putting a mid-range kit lens against one of Nikon's holy trinity but I'm guessing you'd sooner have a less than ideal case scenario anyway.
Also, I've used the Nikon 24-70 for years in every permutation of light and environment you can imagine so I'm comfortable with using it as the benchmark in this instance.
The test was to manually set lenses to infinity (so they had to do some work), switch AF on and then swing around to the bottle in centre frame and fire.
The results were that there wasn't a massive amount of difference to be honest.
Both of them locked in as short a period of time as to leave me comfortable that if I was ever in a scenario where I had to shoot an empty water bottle in a virtually dark room that I wouldn't miss a second of the action.
Neither of them hunted particularly. The majority of the time you could hear the motors had only gone in one direction without overshooting and coming back. Very occasionally they'd go back again but they both did it and never more than one overshoot. 
Where the Fuji scored big though of course is with the EVF you could actually see what it was you were shooting whereas of course with the OVF of the D500 you're virtually blind in that scenario.
Changing lenses out on the Fuji to the 35mm f1.4 and the 50-230 f5.6 was a different issue though.
The 35mm was the worse of the two and would almost always overshoot at least once whereas the 50-230 would generally just do it once.
So, all in all, even with the right lens, its marginally slower than the D500 and even with the wrong lens it will get you there without too many overshoots if you happen to find yourself shooting in conditions where, to be fair, you might want to re-think whether its a video camera you need or a thermal imaging one.
How this test would have gone if the water bottle had decided to get up and run around and which one would track the better I don't know.
But from the actual real jobs I've been doing with the XT-2 the past couple of weeks, I wouldn't be massively concerned about that either.

A bit of an update about this....
I had a discussion earlier this week with Fuji regarding feedback from my XT2 sports testing with regard to firmware tweaks but also to get something out of them regarding roadmaps for long primes and other bits and pieces like FTP picture transfer and their on site support plans for tournaments etc.
Basically, having the camera be good enough is one thing but its the eco system that'll stand or fall by for what I'm doing with it. And I have to know what I'm getting into with them before I invest anymore in it. I can work around stuff for now while its being used alongside my Nikon stuff but not if its going to be transitioned to as a fully fledged replacement system.
So I was alway talking about the handling of it - physically as well as operationally - and how its a bit too compact for its own good. The AF-ON button is something that our right thumbs live on doing sport and its not great geometrically where it is on the XT2 relative to the shutter button and also its a bit small so its not very forgiving especially when wearing gloves.
Anyway, the point of this is that I was told that there definitely is a pro body coming but expect not to see it until 2018 when it will have some fast (f2 fast) primes to go with it.
The cinema zooms in X mount on their roadmap might be a red herring then or maybe they have a video one as well..... 

OK, I've done a basic little test.
Its tricky to do it exactly equivalent because of lens variances etc and my range of X mount lenses is limited compared to my Nikons but anyway.
The test 'scene' was a bedroom with a tiny fragment of outside light, an empty clear mineral water bottle stood on a beige duvet cover with a plain light coloured wall behind. 
So it was low light and not much for the AF to grab hold of as the more distinct contrast points were the creases on the duvet cover!
The illumination level at the bottle was 2 lux according to my Sekonic.
Exposure for the cameras was ISO 12800, f3.2, 1/50th.
On the D500 I used a Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f2.8G ED FX and on the XT-2 the closest thing I've got to that which is the XF18-55 f2.8-4.
Not doing the Fuji any favours really by putting a mid-range kit lens against one of Nikon's holy trinity but I'm guessing you'd sooner have a less than ideal case scenario anyway.
Also, I've used the Nikon 24-70 for years in every permutation of light and environment you can imagine so I'm comfortable with using it as the benchmark in this instance.
The test was to manually set lenses to infinity (so they had to do some work), switch AF on and then swing around to the bottle in centre frame and fire.
The results were that there wasn't a massive amount of difference to be honest.
Both of them locked in as short a period of time as to leave me comfortable that if I was ever in a scenario where I had to shoot an empty water bottle in a virtually dark room that I wouldn't miss a second of the action.
Neither of them hunted particularly. The majority of the time you could hear the motors had only gone in one direction without overshooting and coming back. Very occasionally they'd go back again but they both did it and never more than one overshoot. 
Where the Fuji scored big though of course is with the EVF you could actually see what it was you were shooting whereas of course with the OVF of the D500 you're virtually blind in that scenario.
Changing lenses out on the Fuji to the 35mm f1.4 and the 50-230 f5.6 was a different issue though.
The 35mm was the worse of the two and would almost always overshoot at least once whereas the 50-230 would generally just do it once.
So, all in all, even with the right lens, its marginally slower than the D500 and even with the wrong lens it will get you there without too many overshoots if you happen to find yourself shooting in conditions where, to be fair, you might want to re-think whether its a video camera you need or a thermal imaging one.
How this test would have gone if the water bottle had decided to get up and run around and which one would track the better I don't know.
But from the actual real jobs I've been doing with the XT-2 the past couple of weeks, I wouldn't be massively concerned about that either.

OK, I've done a basic little test.
Its tricky to do it exactly equivalent because of lens variances etc and my range of X mount lenses is limited compared to my Nikons but anyway.
The test 'scene' was a bedroom with a tiny fragment of outside light, an empty clear mineral water bottle stood on a beige duvet cover with a plain light coloured wall behind. 
So it was low light and not much for the AF to grab hold of as the more distinct contrast points were the creases on the duvet cover!
The illumination level at the bottle was 2 lux according to my Sekonic.
Exposure for the cameras was ISO 12800, f3.2, 1/50th.
On the D500 I used a Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f2.8G ED FX and on the XT-2 the closest thing I've got to that which is the XF18-55 f2.8-4.
Not doing the Fuji any favours really by putting a mid-range kit lens against one of Nikon's holy trinity but I'm guessing you'd sooner have a less than ideal case scenario anyway.
Also, I've used the Nikon 24-70 for years in every permutation of light and environment you can imagine so I'm comfortable with using it as the benchmark in this instance.
The test was to manually set lenses to infinity (so they had to do some work), switch AF on and then swing around to the bottle in centre frame and fire.
The results were that there wasn't a massive amount of difference to be honest.
Both of them locked in as short a period of time as to leave me comfortable that if I was ever in a scenario where I had to shoot an empty water bottle in a virtually dark room that I wouldn't miss a second of the action.
Neither of them hunted particularly. The majority of the time you could hear the motors had only gone in one direction without overshooting and coming back. Very occasionally they'd go back again but they both did it and never more than one overshoot. 
Where the Fuji scored big though of course is with the EVF you could actually see what it was you were shooting whereas of course with the OVF of the D500 you're virtually blind in that scenario.
Changing lenses out on the Fuji to the 35mm f1.4 and the 50-230 f5.6 was a different issue though.
The 35mm was the worse of the two and would almost always overshoot at least once whereas the 50-230 would generally just do it once.
So, all in all, even with the right lens, its marginally slower than the D500 and even with the wrong lens it will get you there without too many overshoots if you happen to find yourself shooting in conditions where, to be fair, you might want to re-think whether its a video camera you need or a thermal imaging one.
How this test would have gone if the water bottle had decided to get up and run around and which one would track the better I don't know.
But from the actual real jobs I've been doing with the XT-2 the past couple of weeks, I wouldn't be massively concerned about that either.

I honestly think in 2-3 years time when we are all done to death with cobbling together different lenses and bodies and interfaces and all the other hooch looking for perfect systems then we'll all end up buying camcorders again.
The XC10/15 has a lot going for it in this respect. 
Everyone I know who has been sceptical about it and tried it has found it quite liberating to just have a one box solution that - when you look beyond the specs - just makes decent images and makes them without fuss. 
Obviously they aren't without their issues as you'll find if you have a search on here so whether this iteration of the concept is the right one at the right time I don't know.
Canon have the wherewithal to make a Super 35 version of it with L optics with a constant 2.8 with a FF equivalent (not that old chestnut) of 18 to 300mm, retail it for 5K and it would probably be the last camera most of us would need or buy. Which of course is precisely why they won't do it! 
I tell you who might though and that's JVC if they used the LS300 as a basis. 
I've been using a G7 effectively as a camcorder this week with just one small zoom lens on it and relishing the speed and simplicity of the restriction rather than fretting about it.
So, yes, I think if you just want to get and shoot do what you've described then the XC10/15 is not going to get in your way. In that regard, it has to be a smart choice!
But....
If you're in that area, I'd also take a good look at the Panasonic FZ2000.
Its a lot cheaper, faster lens (at the long end), much longer reach, has NDs, LOG, 5 axis IS, 10 bit very good stills extraction, much cheaper media, 10 bit 4:2:2 HDMI out....
The downside is that in 4K, its cropped to about 35mm FF equivalent (here we go again) which may or may not be a deal breaker for your application.
 

I did some vlogging stuff with a G7 on a trip earlier this week and I have to say that it performed really well and the articulating screen and iPad/iphone remote controlling of it was a real boon. 
I actually wanted to take the GX80 for the stabilisation (I could've lived without the articulating screen because of the ipad/iphone remote) but the lack of a mic input made it dead in the water. 
I'm now, of course, spending loads of time stabilising everything in FCPX which is a real pain in the arse and certainly detracts from the immediacy of what I was trying to do.
Clearly, the best solution for me would be to have the G7 with the GX80 stabilisation.
So that'll be the $80 over budget G80/85

What the fuck?
You never get statements like that?
I tell you what I never get mate.
I never get people who don't read exactly what has been written, especially when all of the differences were clearly qualified, before they toddle off to Grandma's with an egg sucking tutorial.
I should go and shoot a basketball game or indoor/night sport??
Hahaha
Did you see the part where it said I couldn't use it for my day job?
Did you see my other post literally two posts earlier about the 50-140 ?!?
The one that contained the ISO5000 1/2000th f2.8 photograph that I'd taken 3000 metres up in the Sierra Nevadas at -5 degrees at the FIS World Championships?
My day job is a professional editorial sports photographer so, rest assured, I'm fairly au fait with the whole light/aperture/shutter speed thingy and because I shoot in all weathers and all environments I'm also acutely aware of why things that can perform under all those circumstances and withstand that punishment cost a few quid more.
What I'm also acutely aware of is that not everyone needs that and not everyone can afford it either so I thought I'd do a quick comparison because I had both to hand so that people who needed some reach could see what could be had for a much smaller outlay if they could live with the compromises that I'd clearly listed.
I was going to do another one today about a couple of lenses on different formats but fuck that.
 
For reasons best known to themselves, they've hidden the Format option away.
Menu>Spanner Thing>User Setting>Format
Alternatively, press the Trash button on the back of the camera for 3 seconds and then whilst still pressing it also press in the rear rotary command dial on the back of the camera

I did some vlogging stuff with a G7 on a trip earlier this week and I have to say that it performed really well and the articulating screen and iPad/iphone remote controlling of it was a real boon. 
I actually wanted to take the GX80 for the stabilisation (I could've lived without the articulating screen because of the ipad/iphone remote) but the lack of a mic input made it dead in the water. 
I'm now, of course, spending loads of time stabilising everything in FCPX which is a real pain in the arse and certainly detracts from the immediacy of what I was trying to do.
Clearly, the best solution for me would be to have the G7 with the GX80 stabilisation.
So that'll be the $80 over budget G80/85

What the fuck?
You never get statements like that?
I tell you what I never get mate.
I never get people who don't read exactly what has been written, especially when all of the differences were clearly qualified, before they toddle off to Grandma's with an egg sucking tutorial.
I should go and shoot a basketball game or indoor/night sport??
Hahaha
Did you see the part where it said I couldn't use it for my day job?
Did you see my other post literally two posts earlier about the 50-140 ?!?
The one that contained the ISO5000 1/2000th f2.8 photograph that I'd taken 3000 metres up in the Sierra Nevadas at -5 degrees at the FIS World Championships?
My day job is a professional editorial sports photographer so, rest assured, I'm fairly au fait with the whole light/aperture/shutter speed thingy and because I shoot in all weathers and all environments I'm also acutely aware of why things that can perform under all those circumstances and withstand that punishment cost a few quid more.
What I'm also acutely aware of is that not everyone needs that and not everyone can afford it either so I thought I'd do a quick comparison because I had both to hand so that people who needed some reach could see what could be had for a much smaller outlay if they could live with the compromises that I'd clearly listed.
I was going to do another one today about a couple of lenses on different formats but fuck that.
 
For reasons best known to themselves, they've hidden the Format option away.
Menu>Spanner Thing>User Setting>Format
Alternatively, press the Trash button on the back of the camera for 3 seconds and then whilst still pressing it also press in the rear rotary command dial on the back of the camera

It does make a hissing noise.
But compared to the 50-140 its negligible.
If you pine for the sound of the ocean then the 50-140 is in this sort of territory.
 

This is part of a ten shot burst of an erratic fast moving subject at ISO5000, all of which were in focus.
It acquires fast and tracks well. At least the 50-140 f2.8 which this was shot on does.
 

Might just be me being old fashioned and British and what not but is it really appropriate to be in a man's house and speculating about how much he earns?
It's a bit vulgar as well to be honest.
 

Might just be me being old fashioned and British and what not but is it really appropriate to be in a man's house and speculating about how much he earns?
It's a bit vulgar as well to be honest.
 

Might just be me being old fashioned and British and what not but is it really appropriate to be in a man's house and speculating about how much he earns?
It's a bit vulgar as well to be honest.
 

The sales manager gave me a very icy stare and said ominously “Oh, we know who you are”
If its any consolation, the 'we' he's speaking on behalf of there undoubtedly do know who you are but probably have absolutely no idea who he is.

The two cinema zooms are on their roadmap in X mount for later in the year and it would be a bit of a stretch to think they see them being mounted to XT-2s so a cinema camera would make sense.
If it is a more pro version of the XT-2 primarily for still shooters then they've still got some way to go to break Nikon and Canon's hold certainly in my area of shooting sport.
I've been doing field testing of the XT-2 this week at the World Snowboard And Freestyle Skiing Championships and at a La Liga football match shooting for live agency distribution alongside my Nikon kit and its just not there yet.
The image quality is good enough (at 6400 in the football stadium it surprised me with how clean it was) but the handling just isn't up to it. I got used to the EVF blanking but it never gave me much confidence that my timing was right. And it generally wasn't so the ratio of Nikon to Fuji shots that made it from the memory card to the newswire was about 20:1. For the football match it was even less as it inspired such little confidence that it was swapped out for another Nikon at half time. 
Battery life (especially covering the winter sports) was poor and all of this is also turning a blind eye to the lack of long primes. Which all adds up to me being the only one out of 60 odd photographers at both events mad enough to be trying mirrorless out!
It has its place though because not everything is shot on a 400mm 2.8 so I'll be persevering with it again for the closing weekend of the championships.
The roadmap shows that longer primes are coming late next year so, again, that would give more credence to this new one being cinema oriented.
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/xf_lens/roadmap/
 

The two cinema zooms are on their roadmap in X mount for later in the year and it would be a bit of a stretch to think they see them being mounted to XT-2s so a cinema camera would make sense.
If it is a more pro version of the XT-2 primarily for still shooters then they've still got some way to go to break Nikon and Canon's hold certainly in my area of shooting sport.
I've been doing field testing of the XT-2 this week at the World Snowboard And Freestyle Skiing Championships and at a La Liga football match shooting for live agency distribution alongside my Nikon kit and its just not there yet.
The image quality is good enough (at 6400 in the football stadium it surprised me with how clean it was) but the handling just isn't up to it. I got used to the EVF blanking but it never gave me much confidence that my timing was right. And it generally wasn't so the ratio of Nikon to Fuji shots that made it from the memory card to the newswire was about 20:1. For the football match it was even less as it inspired such little confidence that it was swapped out for another Nikon at half time. 
Battery life (especially covering the winter sports) was poor and all of this is also turning a blind eye to the lack of long primes. Which all adds up to me being the only one out of 60 odd photographers at both events mad enough to be trying mirrorless out!
It has its place though because not everything is shot on a 400mm 2.8 so I'll be persevering with it again for the closing weekend of the championships.
The roadmap shows that longer primes are coming late next year so, again, that would give more credence to this new one being cinema oriented.
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/xf_lens/roadmap/