Yurolov

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 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.     

Vlogging implies a greater degree of movement which generally would benefit from a fully articulating screen so you can compose your shot on the fly wherever you are.  

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 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 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 think there is a bit of confusion here. I am arguing for the xh-1 over other consumer cameras like the gh5 and the a6500 on the basis that people who are purchasing these products will experience no discernible difference between the 8 bit and 10 bit codec, which is something you appear to be confirming. 
I didn't say 8 bit is not enough, but if you are going to produce a movie and if you have a decent amount of financial backing, then there is no discernible reason to choose an 8 bit camera, short of aesthetics, and certainly none for high-paying client work, which is more exacting.
For the purposes these cameras will be used, which does not mean they are not good enough for cinema, the 8 bit or 10 bit is really irrelevant. In fact, if I have great Fuji color SOC then why would I need 10 bit to get it to the same end point, except for some unique situations where I have missed exposure. More important is autofocus and good color. That's partly why canon outsells anyone.  
8 bit cameras can be used in cinema but in practicality they won't be. Tangerine was shot on an iphone. But the director has just followed it up with Florida Project, which had a bigger production value and was shot on an Arri. 
Last year, the winner of the Golden Lion at Venice, the woman who left, was shot on a as7ii and in 2012 the winner pieta was shot on a 5d mark ii. It is possible in indie narrative work, but given the choice people will pick the raw cinema camera, because there are distinct advantages and it does look better. There is no question about it, and it isn't just that one is raw and the other is 8 bit - there are many more factors as you know.
So I am saying at this level the xh-1 is the most appealing, and will be more appealing to a wider audience than the gh5 or a6500 if the color and the autofocus are as good as the rumours are saying. Face detect autofocus coupled with ibis - it's the only camera on market that would do that. Think about the possibilities with that combo and with the fuji colors. 10 bit on a small m4/3 camera pales in comparison. 
If I am using my cinema camera I don't need this, but for these types of cameras and for their intended use, the fuji wins hands down, and I think this will be reflected in the sales numbers if they can market it properly.      

I think there is a bit of confusion here. I am arguing for the xh-1 over other consumer cameras like the gh5 and the a6500 on the basis that people who are purchasing these products will experience no discernible difference between the 8 bit and 10 bit codec, which is something you appear to be confirming. 
I didn't say 8 bit is not enough, but if you are going to produce a movie and if you have a decent amount of financial backing, then there is no discernible reason to choose an 8 bit camera, short of aesthetics, and certainly none for high-paying client work, which is more exacting.
For the purposes these cameras will be used, which does not mean they are not good enough for cinema, the 8 bit or 10 bit is really irrelevant. In fact, if I have great Fuji color SOC then why would I need 10 bit to get it to the same end point, except for some unique situations where I have missed exposure. More important is autofocus and good color. That's partly why canon outsells anyone.  
8 bit cameras can be used in cinema but in practicality they won't be. Tangerine was shot on an iphone. But the director has just followed it up with Florida Project, which had a bigger production value and was shot on an Arri. 
Last year, the winner of the Golden Lion at Venice, the woman who left, was shot on a as7ii and in 2012 the winner pieta was shot on a 5d mark ii. It is possible in indie narrative work, but given the choice people will pick the raw cinema camera, because there are distinct advantages and it does look better. There is no question about it, and it isn't just that one is raw and the other is 8 bit - there are many more factors as you know.
So I am saying at this level the xh-1 is the most appealing, and will be more appealing to a wider audience than the gh5 or a6500 if the color and the autofocus are as good as the rumours are saying. Face detect autofocus coupled with ibis - it's the only camera on market that would do that. Think about the possibilities with that combo and with the fuji colors. 10 bit on a small m4/3 camera pales in comparison. 
If I am using my cinema camera I don't need this, but for these types of cameras and for their intended use, the fuji wins hands down, and I think this will be reflected in the sales numbers if they can market it properly.