aceflibble

Set the camera to manual focus. Now the AF-L button can be used for back-button focus. Be aware that the manual focus ring will also still be in use, so hold the camera/lens carefully and don't move the focus ring when you press AF-L.
 
And before anyone asks why Fuji don't just put in regular back-button focus options, the answer is the same reason they don't bother to support tethered shooting properly and they prioritise .jpg over raw: these things are all more popular in the west but not popular to use in the east, and Fuji very specifically targets Asian markets first.

I've not experienced any moiré problems with the newest sensors and processors (Pro2/T2), but I did with the previous generations (all the 16mp models).
 
The much bigger problem, and why I don't use Fuji for anything involving textiles, hair, fur, or feathers, is even the new sensors and processors are still no good with high-frequency detail. The area of fashion which makes up part of my work demands 20mp+ files without resizing, so clients can check details like stitching and fine texture all from one image file. This is why Fuji completely fails. Skin tones? No problem. Patterns? No problem. Moiré? Never. Colour reproduction? Absolutely fine once you've made a calibrated profile, like with any other camera. High-frequency detail? Completely smeared, even with absolutely 0 noise reduction of any kind, worse than any low-pass filter.
 
If your fashion work is viewed in a resized form or as, for example, a full length shot, Fuji works absolutely fine. If your fashion work is viewed at full size or includes macro/detail crops, either forget Fuji, or have a different system to hand specifically for the close-ups.

1. Acros
As darngooddesign said, Acros requires the bigger sensor in the X-Pro2 and X-T2. However, all Acros is is the standard monochrome profile with an 'S' shape tone curve applied, and then some fake 'grain'. You can apply these same adjustments to a raw file in Lightroom using the Tone Curve (select 'medium contrast') and Effects panels for grain, or of course you can take the photo in Photoshop for more careful editing. Other software will have similar options, if you don't use Lightroom.
 
2. I've not noticed a change in speed myself, but you're not the only person who has said the write speeds seem to be slower. Might be a problem with only certain brands of memory card? I'm not sure.

3. The front dial always controls two things—by default, shutter speed and ISO—so yes, you do have to push the dial in to access ISO. Simply turning it without pushing it in will change the shutter speed up or down in 1/3rd stops, but if you want to change shutter speed by a full stop or more then you have to do that with the shutter dial on the top of the camera.
However, if you set the top shutter dial to 'T', then the front dial can control the shutter speed freely, up and down as much as you want. You still push the front dial in to access ISO control.
You can also change the control when you push in the front dial. If you open the main camera menu and go to the second system settings menu (blue 2), you'll see an option called 'button/dial setting'. In there, go to 'function (fn) setting'. The second button, Fn2, is the front dial when pressed in. You can change that to whatever you like, and move ISO to one of the other function buttons. (Some function buttons are disabled depending on what focus mode you're using.)
 
4. There's an easier way to solve this fourth problem. If you turn the camera to manual focus, you can then press the AF-L button to start autofocus. When you stop pressing the AF-L button, autofocus stops and the camera won't change focus. This is called 'back button focus' on most cameras; Fuji just make it part of the manual focus behaviour. So you point the camera at whatever you want to focus at, press the AF-L button to autofocus, then let go fo the button and now the focus stays where it is, no matter how many times you press the shutter. No need to hold a button to hold focus; you can let go and focus doesn't move. The only drawback is you have to remember to press the AF-L button, because half-pressing the shutter will no longer trigger autofocus at all. It takes a little while to get used to, but once you learn it, it'll be no problem and you'll wonder how you ever used a camera without it.

I've switched between zooms and primes more times than I can remember, for all all systems. These days, I'm using a mixture. I've boiled it down to the following mentality:
- Using primes will mean I miss some shots, but the shots I do take are most likely going to be better, on average. I'm more likely to pick my shots better, and people will be more relaxed around smaller lenses.
- Using zooms means I won't miss a single shot, but I'll have to take 150-200% more shots to ensure I get the shot. I'm more likely to be too busy over-shooting to think about what it is I'm shooting, and people are more likely to be uneasy around the larger 2.8 zooms.
 
I pick which I use on any given day depending on what I'm expecting to shoot. Some days I only use primes. Some times, only zooms. Often, a mixture of both. 

Precious family event which will never be repeated? Use zooms. You'll be able to capture absolutely everything.
A nice family day out, but perhaps one which is just one of several that year? Use primes, you'll miss a shot here and there but you'll probably be able to enjoy the day more and you won't annoy everyone else as much.

As far as Fuji goes, specifically, I've not noticed any particular difference in AF speed between the XF primes and zooms, in most lighting conditions. It's only very low light where the primes start to be faster than the zooms, and even then, it's a minimal difference. Optically I find the primes are mostly better than the zooms, except the 50-140 which, for me, beats all the primes except for the 60mm. For harassing your relatives and friends, there's essentially no difference in speed or quality. I only notice the quality differences when I'm on a job and I have to be really picky.

Having now soured on a couple of lenses, and found a new appreciation for some others, I'm now thinking my ideal set up of primes would be:
18mm mk II
35mm f/1.4 mkII
a 70mm f/2
 
Given what lenses Fuji actually is likely to make, though, and what's available right now, I'm going to say:
23mm
35mm f/1.4
60mm
 
With the 60mm being replaced by the rumoured 80mm, when/if that happens.

IS in a lens means adding more glass, which inherently degrads image quality. IS on a sensor means either moving the sensor, which can cause a kind of inverse camera shake effect if it's not shifted in 100% the right way (rare, because it's a very expensive way of doing it); reading off the sensor multiple times per exposure, which can effectively blur the image if the shutter speed is actually high enough to not need it (rare, because at that point you may as well just make a video file and take a frame grab); or cropping in and enlarging, which inherently degrades the image quality. (The most common method.)
 
For medium format it's a bigger problem because you're typically talking about very large files which will be scrutinised. Medium format, these days, is where technical perfection really matters, because the only people shooting medium format now are people who are expecting to make very, very large prints, working for big name publications, doing celebrity portraits, etc.
IS is also a little more pointless for medium format, because the sheer size and weight of most medium format cameras and lenses means you're most likely going to be using a tripod anyway or at least a monopod. You're also more used to using high shutter speeds, further reducing the need for IS.

Of course, because of the size, putting IS on the sensor for medium format is also far more expensive than with smaller sensors. There's also battery drain, write speed, and heat to consider.

So, basically, it's all just a bit pointless for medium format. It's a lot of effort and cost for something which isn't going to be used most of the time, and might degrade image quality even when it is useful.

It's very meh. I was excited for it, as any regular here would know. My original plan was to sell off one of my existing T10s to get a T2 right away, with the other T10 being a back-up, and then selling and upgrading to a second T2 once I was comfortable with the new body. The T2 improves on everything in every way, so it was basically a no-brainer.
But with the pound falling through the floor and the price jumping up by over 50% at the last minute, suddenly I'm not that bothered. I could get one, but out of principal I object to paying so much for what is, as far as my work is concerned, merely a resolution increase. I like a lot of the T2's new and/or improved features, but when it comes down to what will actually make a critical difference to my day-to-day work, the resolution and vague possibility of better tethering are the only things which will be noticable. For video it would be a back-up at best, and likely remain untouched. For casual shooting, any of the first generation of Fuji cameras is fine as they are. 
Is jumping one of my mirrorless cameras from 16mp to 24mp worth £1600, when I already have a 21mp 1Ds and a 50mp Leaf Credo at my disposal? And upgrading both will mean £3200. It doesn't seem like a worthwhile use of money. Even if I wrangle a bit of a discount with one of the local stores, it's still going to be a lot of money for what is a noticable but not game-changing upgrade. For the cost of upgrading to the T2, I could buy a VR-ready PC, a new TV, and have enough left over for a nice weekend away somewhere. I know which I'd rather have.

So I think I'll be waiting. I'm sure I'll buy a T2, eventually. Once one of the T10s actually breaks and the price has dropped to the £1000 mark or less. That's really what I feel is reasonable for this kind of body. But I've lasted fine without the Pro2, and I'm sure waiting for that T2 price drop isn't going to kill me, either.
 
 
 
Depends what you're trying to print and for why. Double-page photo of anything for a big-name publication? You need 24mp. Need. Stock photography? most outlets only demand 16mp, but some do demand 20mp+; having the higher resolution helps you clean up the file even if you only need to submit a 16mp file, anyway. Exhibition client or gallery wants a full-length portrait printed to life-size which can hold up to close scrutiny? The more resolution, the better. I've had clients demand files over 36mp, just for archive purposes.
But of the four photos I've taken which I've actually wanted to print out and put on my own walls myself, the biggest one came from a 9mp file, and it's printed 3' wide, and looks great.
So, yeah. There are absolutely cases for larger and larger file sizes. There are also many times when it won't matter. It's quite wrong to write off either.

I've switched between zooms and primes more times than I can remember, for all all systems. These days, I'm using a mixture. I've boiled it down to the following mentality:
- Using primes will mean I miss some shots, but the shots I do take are most likely going to be better, on average. I'm more likely to pick my shots better, and people will be more relaxed around smaller lenses.
- Using zooms means I won't miss a single shot, but I'll have to take 150-200% more shots to ensure I get the shot. I'm more likely to be too busy over-shooting to think about what it is I'm shooting, and people are more likely to be uneasy around the larger 2.8 zooms.
 
I pick which I use on any given day depending on what I'm expecting to shoot. Some days I only use primes. Some times, only zooms. Often, a mixture of both. 

Precious family event which will never be repeated? Use zooms. You'll be able to capture absolutely everything.
A nice family day out, but perhaps one which is just one of several that year? Use primes, you'll miss a shot here and there but you'll probably be able to enjoy the day more and you won't annoy everyone else as much.

As far as Fuji goes, specifically, I've not noticed any particular difference in AF speed between the XF primes and zooms, in most lighting conditions. It's only very low light where the primes start to be faster than the zooms, and even then, it's a minimal difference. Optically I find the primes are mostly better than the zooms, except the 50-140 which, for me, beats all the primes except for the 60mm. For harassing your relatives and friends, there's essentially no difference in speed or quality. I only notice the quality differences when I'm on a job and I have to be really picky.

Plus, we are hardly representative of the Fuji's demographic. Take Thailand for example where Fuji A series reigns like an uncontested king for almost any woman with interest in photography.

The one I've ended up using myself is called Viltrox—nope, I've never heard of them before, either—and I picked them up after a fellow local X-shooter lent me his set. They're on Amazon, just search for Viltrox on whichever version of Amazon is relevant for your country. Two others I can recall were called Fotga, who make several Fuji accessories and theirs worked fine, and a set I can't remember the brand name of but their metal parts had funky red anodising, so they should be easy to spot.
I've tried five third-party sets in all and not noticed a problem with any of them, but for the life of me I can't remember the names of the other two. AF worked fine, exposure metering worked fine, all feel equally secure. The Fuji ones have  slightly nicer paint finish to them, obviously, but that's all that the premium price gives you.
 
I guess I should add, in the interest of fairness, that this doesn't just go for Fuji. Extension tubes are one of the easiest and cheapest accessories to make, for any mount, so there's no point buying official Canon/Nikon/Sony/etc ones, either.

The one I've ended up using myself is called Viltrox—nope, I've never heard of them before, either—and I picked them up after a fellow local X-shooter lent me his set. They're on Amazon, just search for Viltrox on whichever version of Amazon is relevant for your country. Two others I can recall were called Fotga, who make several Fuji accessories and theirs worked fine, and a set I can't remember the brand name of but their metal parts had funky red anodising, so they should be easy to spot.
I've tried five third-party sets in all and not noticed a problem with any of them, but for the life of me I can't remember the names of the other two. AF worked fine, exposure metering worked fine, all feel equally secure. The Fuji ones have  slightly nicer paint finish to them, obviously, but that's all that the premium price gives you.
 
I guess I should add, in the interest of fairness, that this doesn't just go for Fuji. Extension tubes are one of the easiest and cheapest accessories to make, for any mount, so there's no point buying official Canon/Nikon/Sony/etc ones, either.

Figured the 18mm would be a lot of peoples' answer. It's interesting, that one, 'cause it always seems that most of the complaints aren't that it's bad on its own merits, just that it's not up to the standards of the other Fuji lenses.

Had this conversation with someone from Fuji earlier; there's a lot of talk on Fuji sites about which lens is the best/favourite/most used/whatever, but few people will speak up on what they've ended up not liking. It's actually a bit of a problem for certain Fuji departments; because so much of the feedback on lenses is nothing but praise, it makes it harder for them to know how to market new lenses. (Note: I've not heard that it makes it any harder for them to know which lenses to make next or revise, just how to advertise them/communicate their benefits to consumers.)
 
Also, as someone who has traded in/sold more lenses than he can remember owning, I'm often thinking of which lenses I don't need, rather than which lens I have to buy next.
 
So, with that in mind, I thought it'd be interesting to ask y'all: which one Fuji lens have you bought but ended up not using much, have outright hated, or have never been at all tempted to buy?
 
I made the thread, so I'll start: 56mm f/1.2. Bought one thinking it would replace the 60mm as my main Fuji portrait lens, hated it, sold it, thought I didn't give it enough of a chance, bought a second one, had it sit in my camera bag for a year unused and finally traded that one in. I think I'm definitely done with it now. Never thought the results at f/1.2 were that spectacular, and from f/2.5 onwards I found I was better off using the 60mm, especially in the studio where the 56mm hits diffraction much earlier and AF speed is basically irrelevant. I can totally see its use for other people, and I still advise other people give it a go, but for me, it just wouldn't 'click'.
 
Anybody?
 
(Disclaimer: no guarantee anybody from Fuji will read this, but it'll be fun to bring up next time I see them.)

Depends what how you define the "look", what you're shooting, and whether you shoot raw or jpg.
 
For jpg, the newer files are sharper. Noise reduction is less aggressive by default and can be turned lower than before. For high frequency detail, like grass, leaves, or a fabric texture, you'll find the new files are less smeared. Shadow detail is very slightly cleaner. Skin tones aren't so heavily optimised just for Asian tones now, so if you shoot portraits and your clients/subjects cover a wide range of skin tones from all ethnicities, the new files will be more flattering overall. Red and intense orange tones hold detail and are smoother, now, with less chance of a bright red object burning or blocking out. If you shoot black & white you'll probably appreciate the built-in S-shape tone curve of the Acros profile, as it nicely increases contrast and sharpness without crushing/burning detail or increasing blocking like the normal shadow/highlight and sharpness controls do. The red, yellow, and green filters for the monochrome and Acros profiles are also very slightly less severe than they are on the older cameras, so they look a bit more like what you get with an actual colour filter and not the overly-photoshopped nature of the old files.

For raw, it's basically the same as you had before. A few things are better, like intense red tones not getting crushed as badly, and of course the resolution is higher so you naturally get more detail, but that's about it. This is of course better if you're shooting technical stuff. Panels, product packaging, macro, etc. It's nicer if you shoot landscapes, just like any higher-resolution, lower-noise sensor always is. If you shoot portraits, street, events, or travel, and you shoot raw, I don't think you'll notice any difference at all. 
 
The in-camera jpgs have changed in a small but noticable way, which not everybody is going to like. (Just like how some people still prefer the look of X-Trans I files to X-Trans II.) The raw files... they're raw files. The changes are minimal and you could correct them back to how the X-Trans II files looked, if you really want.
 
I say this as someone who most commonly uses the T1 & T10 and has rented a Pro2. People who have lived/worked with the Pro2 more intensely may have spotted further changes, but I mean, I put about 500 shots on the thing, so I feel I've got a good grasp on what the new sensor will do. 

Well, since you're the only person to respond in a week  , I think I'll just say: all of the top lines are Fuji colours, all of the bottom ones in each pair are Adobe. Actually, the misalignment caused by the Fuji lens optimisation gives this away!
I think the heavy change in green is linked to the difference in white balance between Fuji and industry standards. Fuji film was known for having a cooler colour balance, so they set the white balance to run slightly blue. This probably makes green tones look unnaturally dull, so when the camera processes the .jpg files they have it increase the saturation and brightness a little and for some film simulations it also shifts green tones slightly back towards yellow. Conversely, Fuji doesn't seem to apply this shift to the yellow tones, which are simply left duller/bluer in most film simulations, or it could be that the corrections they apply to green bleed over into the yellow; either way, Fuji seems to be sacrificing yellow for the sake of green. (Classic Chrome being the exception, which has everything shifted slightly warm.)
Adobe Lightroom, and other programs, don't know the intentions behind Fuji's design decisions, so they don't over-correct the green. All the software knows is the colour balance is a little cooler than it perhaps should be, so greens are represented 'accurately' with a slightly drab and slightly bluer tone. (Velvia being the exception, which does have much more yellow in the greens; Adobe probably guessed that this would be used a lot for landscapes so they optimised the green tone themselves.) 

In other words, Fuji's style is partly done at capture (white balance) and partly after (processing the .jpg), whereas Lightroom is just aiming for an accurate representation of the capture (white balance).

For the lenses, Fuji applies profiles to even the raw files to fix colour fringing, distortion and colour casts. You can turn it off in most Fuji cameras, but once you've taken a picture with it on, it can't be removed from the file, even if you shoot raw. Adobe Lightroom warns you of this when you look at a Fuji image in the develop module. Every Fuji lens has some 'optimisation' applied to it, but some more than others. The 56mm has fairly little, just a tiny bit of distortion and fringing correction. The wider you go, the more heavily these things apply. The 35mm without optimisation has quite a lot of colour fringing, which in some cases can interfere with colour rendition (e.g. you photograph something purple and the camera reduces purple fringing, making the edges of your subject look drab) and wider than f/5.6 it shows some colour bleed, which is also corrected by Fuji's lens optimisation. The 60mm lens has less distortion and aberration fixes applied, but it has a warmer colour cast to it which is half-fixed by the software and makes it inappropriate for testing colour charts. The 14mm simply has so much distortion correction applied to it that everything is smeared. I've not yet tested the other Fuji lenses to see exactly what optimisation Fuji is doing.

I typically test my new cameras and lenses with a simple product set-up and a ColorChecker Passport just to make sure everything is working properly, but this time around with the X-T10 I decided to also directly test the Fuji in-camera film simulations against Lightroom's rendering.

First, some notes on equipment and settings:
Lights used were two InterFit daylight balanced continuous lights, which I frequently use for product photography. They're nearly perfectly balanced. (Tested with several shades of grey card, they consistently give a white balance of 5,540k needing a tint of just +2 towards magenta.) I tested the X-T10 with the 14mm, 35mm, 56mm and 60mm lenses, however I am only posting the results from the 56mm as I found this to be the most neutral. The JPG files of the 14mm and 35mm are given a lot more 'optimisation' by the camera and the 60mm has a slightly warm colour cast to it. The 56mm lens does still have some optimisation applied to it, though. Camera settings for all shots were ISO 200, 1/400th and f/4. Other settings were RAW+F, white balance set to Daylight, sharpness -1, noise reduction -2. Everything else left at default/0. Lightroom left everything at default/as shot/0, only reducing the default sharpening of 25 down to 15 and changing the colour profile to the appropriate film simulation. Before you look at the images and try to guess which is which, I want to mention Fuji's white balance. Their 'daylight' white balance is, in fact, not a daylight white balance. A true daylight white balance should be 5,500k with no tint. (Some people argue daylight should be 5,600k.) Fuji's daylight balance, however, reads at 5,200k with a +7 tint towards magenta. This is clearly a cooler balance than the industry standard used by everybody else. I double-checked with my X100S and that gave the same 5,200k +7 result.
Not only that, but an actual perfect white balance of these Fuji  files comes out as 5,350k +28 (Lightroom auto) to 5,150k +35 (manually selecting a perfect balance). I double-checked this in SilkyPix and got the exact same results. I then tested again with a Canon camera and that read 5,570k and +5 in-file and 5,620k +6 corrected, which is much closer to what any daylight balance should be reading as.
This suggests that Fuji are running their colour much greener than it should be, either by having green read too strongly or magenta too weakly.
I will note that when I first bought a Fuji camera, the X100S, right away I felt the colour balances were all running a bit cool and I tweaked them all to run +1 towards yellow and red/magenta. Testing the X-T10 now, it seems I have been right to do this.
Of course, some people like Fuji film specifically because it has a cooler tone to it than the neutral-warm colours of Kodak, so this white balance bias may have been completely intentional by Fuji in order to replicate the cooler bias of their film stock. Even so, I think they've gone maybe a little too far with the green tint.


So, on to the actual images.

In order, we have Provia/Standard, Velvia/Vivid, Astia/Soft, Classic Chrome, Pro Negative High and Pro Negative Standard. I will not yet tell you whether the in-camera rendering or the Lightroom rendering is first or second in each pairing. That's our test, let's see if people can actually pick out which renderings they think are Fuij's or Adobe's. All I will say is that there are no 'trick' pairings, i.e. I didn't change the colour in any way, there are no mismatched pairs, etc. Each pair does contain one Fuji rendering and one Adobe rendering of the same film simulation.


 

And now the Monochromes. In order we have Monochrome, Monochrome + Yellow filter, Monochrome + Red filter and Monochrome + Green filter. No, I did not test the Sepia tone, because you have to be out of your mind to use Sepia.



 

My own observation is that the aqua, blue, purple and magenta colours barely change at all between Lightroom and in-camera, red only changes a noticable amount in one film simulation and yellow changes noticeably in two. The biggest offender is green, which is never matched well other than in Classic Chrome. The Classic Chrome simulation definitely is the one that Adobe and Fuji are the most closely-matched.
I also think it's interesting that mono and mono+Y are hardly different at all, with just a slight darkening of blue in one of the renderings of mono+Y, and that the green patch, which is the biggest problem for the colour renderings, is almost perfectly equal in all the monochrome renderings.
 
So, guess away. In each pairing, which do you think is Fuji and which do you think is Adobe? Make sure your monitor is calibrated properly! I'll give the answers in a few days.

As far as continuous light goes, to give you an example of the sort of light power you get out of a 1000w (equivalent) LED fresnel light with the light concentrated into a medium spotlight, the settings I typically end up with are ISO 400, f/2.8, 1/60th. Obviously, that's nowhere near the kind of exposure you can get from a speedlight, let alone a studio monolight/power pack. That's a continuous light which costs over £1,000. The 650w version, which still costs over £700, gives about 2/3rds of a stop less light. You can increase the light by using more lights or reflecting more of the ambient light on your subject, but it'll never add up to enough to use a faster shutter. Suffice to say, continuous light is very much not a good substitute for HSS if you need high shutter speeds. Quite the opposite; continuous light is for people who are happy to work at slow shutter speeds. If you want to keep the shutter speed, high, you need to use flash of some kind.
 
Even so, bear in mind that not all HSS systems work quite the same. Most do pulse the light, but some only pulse the bear minimum number of times, while others will pulse a lot. How effective a unit is at HSS also depends on its power source, triggers, shutter delay... basically, most HSS shooting works fine, but don't be surprised if it fails you at some point. When you're trying to expose an image at 1/500th of a second or faster, there's a lot which can easily go wrong.

If you ever decide you want to go further with flash, and you get a little more money, take a look at Cactus flashes. They are getting an update soon to support HSS on all systems, they support remote control for all systems, and have a host of other features; however, they do cost a bit more than Neewer/Yongnuo flashes, so leave them alone for now but keep them in mind for when/if you decide to advance your flash work.

I have used quite some effort to to put my story down in pictures and writing. Hope it will be of interest for some.
http://larsdaniel.com/2016/06/09/switching-from-canon-to-fuji/
 
Thanks for reading. :-)

Honestly, with Fuji, forget Capture One. It's a great program with Leaf/Mamiya products. It's great with Sony. It's pretty good with Nikon and Canon, as far as tethering goes, but it's no better for their raw files than any other program. For Fuji it's downright atrocious. Shaky raw support. No tether support. The standard controls aren't well suited to non-bayer files.

There's honestly, honestly no reason to use Capture One if you shoot Fuji. There just isn't. At best it's a little behind Lightroom, and it's not like Lightroom is particularly great, either. For every other brand, Capture One is nice. Not Fuji.

Honestly, with Fuji, forget Capture One. It's a great program with Leaf/Mamiya products. It's great with Sony. It's pretty good with Nikon and Canon, as far as tethering goes, but it's no better for their raw files than any other program. For Fuji it's downright atrocious. Shaky raw support. No tether support. The standard controls aren't well suited to non-bayer files.

There's honestly, honestly no reason to use Capture One if you shoot Fuji. There just isn't. At best it's a little behind Lightroom, and it's not like Lightroom is particularly great, either. For every other brand, Capture One is nice. Not Fuji.

Depends how they've been processed, and how the lens was measured/tested. Some people only consider distortion to be warping beyond what you expect from a particular angle of view. For instance, the compression you get from a 200mm+ lens used for a portrait isn't considered 'distortion', even though it isn't a true representation of the subject. Similarly, some people expect a wide-angle lens to spread out the sides and corners of an image, so they don't consider that to be an error, either. In that sense, that example photo is quite distortion-free. Wide-angle lenses often suffer from barrel distortion, but that image doesn't buldge in at the middle, so someone looking for barrel distortion might consider that image to be free from faults.

With Fuji lenses things are made more complicated because you can't mount them to other companies' bodies for testing, and Fuji's own bodies always apply a range of corrections—including distortion correction—to the images. You can turn that feature off, but it is never fully off, and it's on by default. Most raw convertors will also include these corrections by default. So you could have a case where one person simply uses everything with the default settings, and sees no distortion, but another person may have taken the time to disable all those corrections and will see some distortion.

Fuji lenses are also flat field designs, which doesn't have anything to do with distortion from a technical point of view, but it does change how you use the lens and frame subjects for sharpest focus, which in turn may help minimise distortion compared to how you'd frame the scene if you were using a curved field lens. Basically, people using Fuji cameras tend to be more aware of keep the camera perfectly upright and straight, whereas someone using something like a Canon or Sony might not be so careful and very slightly tilt the camera, which could then exaggerate some distortions.
 
 
tl;dr: If you look at images from the lens and you see distortions, they're distortions. If you look at images from the lens and don't notice any distortions, it's distortion-free. What you define as distortion and how much you're willing to accept or notice is entirely subjective. There's no such thing as a lens which is truly 100% technically distortion-free, but different people have different standards and expect/will allow different types and degrees of distortion for different focal lengths.

Didn't know whether to put this in general or the X-T1/X-T10 board. Move as you wish.

Anyway, as I alluded to in the comments a few days back, I have been able to get my hands on a pre-production X-T2... for about 60 seconds. There is nothing new I can report which hasn't already been talked about on the FR front page; Patrick's got everything covered and evidently his sources are in a better position to give you close-up photos and videos and whatever. If you want new information, there's little I can say.
What I can do is confirm some of the things people weren't sure about, and give you my impressions from having held it for about the time it took for my friend to eat his muffin, and chatting about it for a few minutes. Which isn't much, but hey; rumours are the best we've got, usually, so hands-on is a small step up, at least.
 
First, a few questions which I know will come up, and I'm just going to shoot down right away:

Q: Do you have any raw files to share, did you shoot any 4k video, etc?
A: No. It's not my camera. It's not a camera I'm supposed to have seen. It's not a camera I got to go out shooting with. I just got to hold it for literally a minute, look through the viewfinder, turn a few dials, glance at the menu, etc.

Q: How did you get it?
A: Several of my friends work in the industry; a couple are Fuji X photographers. I met one for coffee, he happened to have the camera with him. He let me hold it while he ate a muffin. That's literally all. There's no exciting super secret 007 spy story. 
 
Q: Can you give us [things which would give away your friend's identity]? Can they come and post here about their experience with the X-T2?
A: No. I've not signed an NDA or made any embargo agreement with Fuji, so I can say whatever the hell I like. He can't. Every X photographer and member of the press who has been granted use of an X-T2 has signed an NDA. Giving away anything which could lead Fuji to work out who talks to who could mean very real, very serious legal trouble for those photographers. So I won't say anything which could be used to identify any of my friends or info sources, and none of them post here or on any other Fuji-specific forum. They know I talk, but they also trust me to keep their identities completely safe and secret.

Q: Why should we believe you?
A: Common sense dictates that you shouldn't. Like all rumours, it would be smart for you to take everything with a big pinch of salt. All I can say is that most people who follow the front page probably have a good idea of my track record with talking about design aspects of bodies, which are later confirmed by Patrick's own sources. But if you don't wish to believe me, that's fine. I wouldn't believe me, either. That's the nature of rumours and talking about products which haven't been officially released yet.

Q: Did you also see a 23mm f/2 lens?
A: No.
 
 
Okay, obvious questions out the way, here's what I can elaborate on:

The photos Patrick's sources have been sharing with him are, undoubtably, legitimate. (As if there was any doubt at this point.)  The unit I saw is identical to those. 
All the things which I've mentioned before in the front page comments and Patrick's had as more reliably-rumoured specs, are right there. All the obvious stuff: dual SD slots, function button instead of dedicated video button, 1/250th sync speed, etc. Again, as if there was any doubt left, I can confirm that everything which has been repeatedly reported on the front page is accurate. This is why I say there's nothing new to talk about. Patrick's coverage has been incredibly accurate.

In terms of feel, it does seem a tiny bit bigger and heavier than the X-T1, but having not held an X-T1 for over a year—I sold my pair to 'trade down' to a couple of X-T10s—I could simply be misremembering the X-T1's size and weight. I couldn't exactly whip out a measuring tape and a set of scales to weigh it. In any case, it's not a problem. Still a small body, still a light body. Balanced perfectly with the 23mm f/1.4 which was on it. No need to worry about the size increase. I only noticed it because I was specifically thinking about it.
The textured parts of the surface—the fake leather texture—feels a little less rubbery and has a more pronounced texture than I remember the X-T1 having. (Certainly much nicer than the T10 has.) The smooth metal areas feel the same, no change there.

The concentric control dials are much nicer than before. I'd been told months ago (and mentioned it on the front page) that the lock buttons had been revised, and it does seem that way. They sit very slightly higher than the dial than they did before and pressing them required a bit more force, with a more definite click as they locked/unlocked. Not so much of a change that it will slow you down, but I can now see how this will definitely be enough to stop any accidental turning of the top dials. The dials are very slightly taller, as you've all seen; they also had a slightly colder feel, which I can only assume means they're being cut from a denser metal than before. Each dial felt very slightly stiffer to turn than before, too; though this could just be because it's obviously a newer body, since those things tend to get looser with age.
 
Viewfinder is bigger than before. How much bigger, I couldn't say; I've no way of meauring it and my friend didn't know a specific figure, either. But he'd told me before that it felt bigger to him, and looking through it myself, it did seem bigger, to me. Again, though, it's been a while since I looked through an X-T1's viewfinder—even when I had the X-T1, I alway use the rear screen—so I could be misremembering, but the T2's is at least as big as the Sony α7II's, a camera I've used more recently and can compare more clearly.
 
Refresh rate seemed flawless. Way above what the T1, Pro2, or α7II give. Again, I've no way of counting a specific number. I know that thing came out recently about it being 100fps. I don't know how I'd count 100fps. All I can say is we were sat in the back of an average-dimly lit high street coffee shop, and I didn't notice any lag or stuttering or anything. By far the most faultless EVF I've seen. The only way I could tell it wasn't an OVF is because of the brightness and the applied colour profile. (Film simulation.) Otherwise it may as well be an OVF. Hell, it's better than an OVF. Much brighter, under those conditions. If Pro2 owners get to look through this, they're going to question why they spent so much money on having an optical viewfinder. Like I said, no way of giving you specific figures, but I can say that the T2's EVF is by far the best SLR-style viewfinder I've ever looked through.
 
Rear screen, other than the new hinging—yes, it hinges just like Patrick's photos show—seems the same as the Pro2's. It's fine; great, even. It's what I typically use 99.99% of the time. But yeah, nothing special to say here, 'cause Patrick's photos have already shown you all of the hinging. Yes, it tilts up, down, and left and right. Or up and down in landscape and up and down in portrait, if you prefer thinking of it that way. Didn't seem any weaker or tougher than the T1's style of tilting. It's fine, it works, don't worry about it.
 
Yes, it's got 4K. He doesn't shoot video at all, and I don't shoot video with SLR or mirrorless, so this isn't an area either of us care about. I just saw that 4K was mentioned in the menu, and he told me that Fuji had told him it has a 10-minute limit on 4K files. So, kinda the same situation as Nikon's in. (They have a 3-minute limit, right?) But yeah, it's not something either of us uses, so I don't know what else I could tell you about this. But it does it, there. Another thing to tick off on the back of the box for marketing. Other video options remain unchanged from the Pro2, as far as I could see/tell with my limited interest in mirrorless video.
 
Focus on a still subject—my coffee cup—under slightly-dim lighting seemed the same as the Pro2. Used the 23mm f/1.4. Same focus point arrangement as the Pro2. Same joystick for AF point control on the back a the Pro2 has. We already knew it had it, of course, but I've seen some people wish for it to be larger, have more positive movement, etc. It felt exactly the same, to me. So no change there.
Can't say anything on focus tracking. Didn't test it. Not many high-speed subjects in the back of a Starbucks.

Burst rate is faster than the Pro2's. Apparently, Fuji told him it could max out at 9fps. He told me he's experienced some slowdown for focusing, etc, which is normal for any camera. So he reckons 8.5fps is what you actually get. I gave it a quick go just pointing at the table, to see where the buffer would kick in. It didn't seem to last any longer than the Pro2's, but it did get 32 frames of uncompressed raw in the same time span. (About 3 seconds, felt like.) That's about 5 or 6 more than the Pro2 manages, and for the same stretch of time, that does work out to be around 9fps. So I expect Fuji are being honest when they told him 9fps is the max. A dark table in a dim room is a pretty easy and quick scene to capture, so pretty ideal for maxing out the FPS and buffer. Who knows if they'll try to market it as 9fps or 8.5, or even just 8, so people aren't disappointed when it comes to bursting more complex shots. In any case, it got more shots in the same time as the Pro2 does, so we've got a faster burst and a deeper buffer, but ultimately covering the same 3-and-a-bit seconds.
Like I said, just pointed at the table, so I can't speak for how well that keeps up when combined with continuous focus tracking.
I don't know about the boost mode with the grip. Didn't have it on the camera. If they split the burst so it's 8fps without grip, for consistency, and 11fps with the grip for speed, that'd make sense. Having the camera without the grip be capable of 9fps but only shoot at 8fps is a sensible thing to do for the sake of the shutter's lifespan, write speeds, being able to market a deeper buffer, etc. But right there this afternoon, with no grip, it shot above 8fps.
The only thing about the grip I can say is that, having seen the basic body in person, it definitely will be a new grip. There's no way the old grip would be compatible with this body. Different door shapes, different grip depth. Fuji did send the new grip to him with the body, but he's just not a grip user so he's not bothered with it. I am a grip user, so I asked more about it, but yeah, he doesn't use it so not much to say. It's new, it's got that boost mode, and the old grip won't work. Everything we already knew, basically.
 
As far as focusing, burst, and write speeds go, the camera was in the high performance mode. Didn't try putting it in power saving. I can only assume everything slows down in power saving, just like with every other Fuji camera.

Write speed for a single frame felt to be about the same speed as the Pro2, with an SDXC card in the UHS-II slot. This wasn't a technical test, no other cards to try in different slots.

Start up time seems the same as the Pro2 and wake up time felt a tiny bit faster than the Pro2. Couldn't time it, obviously. But it seemed a fraction quicker.

Battery he had in it was the same old NP-W126. I expressed some disappointment on this, because I'm always hoping for larger-capacity batteries. But I remain hopeful, because the battery is one of the things which most commonly changes between pre-production and final release models. I really hope this is changed and we get a bigger capacity for the release. But for what it's worth, this pre-production unit was using the NP-W126, just like the Pro2, Pro1, T1, T10, E2, E1...
 
Nothing new in terms of colour profiles (film simulations), .jpg settings, etc. All the same as the Pro2. No idea on raw handling because, of course, no software supports T2 raws, yet. But my friend said the .jpgs he's been shooting have been identical to the ones out of his Pro2, so yeah. Everything's the same there, as we all expect.

Micro USB port, unlabelled, but it looked to me like a micro B, and he told me Fuji said it's USB 3.0, though he's had no use for it. (Of course, no software right now supports the T2.) That should help for tethering, I suppose? Not that Fuji's tethering is worth a damn. In any case, hey, looks like a micro USB 3.0 port is on the cards. (Though wasn't the Pro2 meant to have micro USB 3.0, too? But that ended up having micro USB 2.0. So I won't be surprised if Fuji decides to be cheap and downgrades the T2 to USB 2.0. But hey, pre-production has 3.0.)
 
Mini HDMI port is still there. I'm guessing that it's a D-type, like the Pro2 has; he didn't know which particular version and I don't know enough about the different types of mini HDMI to identify it. It's unlabelled. In any case, hey, it's there, looks just like it is with the Pro2. Ditto for the audio ports.
 
Doors for battery/port/card access all have the same double action hinge and latch as the Pro2's battery door has. It's just less flimsy than the T1 had. Nothing about them suggested to me that it is any better weather-sealed, though. Feels very much like this is still a 'weather resistant' body and not a 'weather sealed' body.
 
All the stuff people have bizarrely asked for, even though it's obvious it would never have, were indeed not there: no IBIS, no pop-up flash, no CF cards, no APS-H or 35mm sensor, no bayer sensor.

 
 
So, there you have it. Everything I could glean from ~60 seconds with a pre-production X-T2 body. I don't think there's anything else to say, didn't get to give it a proper test or mount my own lenses or memory cards or shoot with it. I'll happily answer questions if I can, but I don't know what else I could say; if you're curious about something which I've not already written about, then chances are it's something I didn't look at or think to ask about. Obviously I'm asking about the camera as much as I can without being annoying, and I hope I'll be able to beg for a little more time with it at some point. But for now, that's about the extent of all I know and saw.
 
This might be interesting to you, it might be boring, I don't know. Just thought I may as well share 'cause I can.

I'm double-checking this with an X-T10 in my hands right now—well, it's on the desk because I can't hold a camera and type at the same time—and there's no way to do it.
 
With the lens set to A, you are not in aperture priority. If the shutter is set to A, too, you'll be in program. This allows you to change the shutter and the aperture through various combinations, to keep the same exposure. (E.g. increasing the shutter by a stop also opens the aperture by a stop; closing the aperture by one stop slows the shutter by a stop; etc.) That is done with both the front and rear dials; although the dials are marked as being shutter on front and aperture on rear, because changing one automatically changes the other by an equal amount, the result is both dials control both perimeters.
 
You can see which mode you're in by simply pressing the menu button once and loking at the top of the first screen.
If the aperture ring is on an f-stop number and the shutter is on A, it will say you're in 'aperture priority AE' and only the aperture ring can be used to change the aperture. If the lens does not have an aperture ring, the rear dial has to be used to adjust the aperture.
If the aperture ring is on A and the shutter is on an exposure time, it will say 'shutter priority AE' and the shutter dial and front dial will, together, control shutter speed. Front dial can adjust the shutter in 1/3rd stop steps up to 2/3rds of a stop faster or slower than the value indicated by the shutter dial; whole stop steps must be made with the top shutter dial.
If the aperture is set to A and the shutter is set to T, the menu will say 'shutter priority AE' and the shutter speed will be controlled with the front dial.
If the aperture is set to A and the shutter is set to A, the menu will say 'program AE' and both front and rear dials will change the mixture of aperture and shutter speed, in 1/3rd stop steps, to maintain the exposure as the camera meters it.
If the aperture i set to an f-stop number and the shutter is set to an exposure time or T, the menu will read 'manual'. Aperture will only be controlled by the ring on the lens, and shutter will be controlled by the top shutter dial for whole step changes, and the front dial for 1/3rd-stop changes. If the lens does not have an aperture ring, the rear dial controls aperture.
Pressing the front dial in, in any mode, will bring up the ISO menu. Pressing the rear dial in will enlarge the image preview/live view.

You can swap the front and rear dials around in the menu, under button/dial settings. This allows you to switch shutter adjustment to the rear dial and aperture adjustment—when available—to the front dial.
 
There is not, categorically, an option to control the aperture with the rear dial if the lens has an aperture ring.
 
There is a menu option for 'aperture setting', which is where you can adjust the dial settings for controlling aperture if the lens attached is one which does not have an aperture ring. If you attach a lens which does have its own aperture setting, this menu option will be greyed out and you are unable to select it.
 
 
Short recap: If your lens has an aperture ring, the rear dial can not control aperture. If your lens does not have an aperture ring, the rear dial is the only way to control aperture. If you have ever thought you've been able to use the rear dial to control the aperture of a lens which has an aperture ring, either you're thinking of Program AE mode, or you're simply completely remembering incorrectly.

Didn't know whether to put this in general or the X-T1/X-T10 board. Move as you wish.

Anyway, as I alluded to in the comments a few days back, I have been able to get my hands on a pre-production X-T2... for about 60 seconds. There is nothing new I can report which hasn't already been talked about on the FR front page; Patrick's got everything covered and evidently his sources are in a better position to give you close-up photos and videos and whatever. If you want new information, there's little I can say.
What I can do is confirm some of the things people weren't sure about, and give you my impressions from having held it for about the time it took for my friend to eat his muffin, and chatting about it for a few minutes. Which isn't much, but hey; rumours are the best we've got, usually, so hands-on is a small step up, at least.
 
First, a few questions which I know will come up, and I'm just going to shoot down right away:

Q: Do you have any raw files to share, did you shoot any 4k video, etc?
A: No. It's not my camera. It's not a camera I'm supposed to have seen. It's not a camera I got to go out shooting with. I just got to hold it for literally a minute, look through the viewfinder, turn a few dials, glance at the menu, etc.

Q: How did you get it?
A: Several of my friends work in the industry; a couple are Fuji X photographers. I met one for coffee, he happened to have the camera with him. He let me hold it while he ate a muffin. That's literally all. There's no exciting super secret 007 spy story. 
 
Q: Can you give us [things which would give away your friend's identity]? Can they come and post here about their experience with the X-T2?
A: No. I've not signed an NDA or made any embargo agreement with Fuji, so I can say whatever the hell I like. He can't. Every X photographer and member of the press who has been granted use of an X-T2 has signed an NDA. Giving away anything which could lead Fuji to work out who talks to who could mean very real, very serious legal trouble for those photographers. So I won't say anything which could be used to identify any of my friends or info sources, and none of them post here or on any other Fuji-specific forum. They know I talk, but they also trust me to keep their identities completely safe and secret.

Q: Why should we believe you?
A: Common sense dictates that you shouldn't. Like all rumours, it would be smart for you to take everything with a big pinch of salt. All I can say is that most people who follow the front page probably have a good idea of my track record with talking about design aspects of bodies, which are later confirmed by Patrick's own sources. But if you don't wish to believe me, that's fine. I wouldn't believe me, either. That's the nature of rumours and talking about products which haven't been officially released yet.

Q: Did you also see a 23mm f/2 lens?
A: No.
 
 
Okay, obvious questions out the way, here's what I can elaborate on:

The photos Patrick's sources have been sharing with him are, undoubtably, legitimate. (As if there was any doubt at this point.)  The unit I saw is identical to those. 
All the things which I've mentioned before in the front page comments and Patrick's had as more reliably-rumoured specs, are right there. All the obvious stuff: dual SD slots, function button instead of dedicated video button, 1/250th sync speed, etc. Again, as if there was any doubt left, I can confirm that everything which has been repeatedly reported on the front page is accurate. This is why I say there's nothing new to talk about. Patrick's coverage has been incredibly accurate.

In terms of feel, it does seem a tiny bit bigger and heavier than the X-T1, but having not held an X-T1 for over a year—I sold my pair to 'trade down' to a couple of X-T10s—I could simply be misremembering the X-T1's size and weight. I couldn't exactly whip out a measuring tape and a set of scales to weigh it. In any case, it's not a problem. Still a small body, still a light body. Balanced perfectly with the 23mm f/1.4 which was on it. No need to worry about the size increase. I only noticed it because I was specifically thinking about it.
The textured parts of the surface—the fake leather texture—feels a little less rubbery and has a more pronounced texture than I remember the X-T1 having. (Certainly much nicer than the T10 has.) The smooth metal areas feel the same, no change there.

The concentric control dials are much nicer than before. I'd been told months ago (and mentioned it on the front page) that the lock buttons had been revised, and it does seem that way. They sit very slightly higher than the dial than they did before and pressing them required a bit more force, with a more definite click as they locked/unlocked. Not so much of a change that it will slow you down, but I can now see how this will definitely be enough to stop any accidental turning of the top dials. The dials are very slightly taller, as you've all seen; they also had a slightly colder feel, which I can only assume means they're being cut from a denser metal than before. Each dial felt very slightly stiffer to turn than before, too; though this could just be because it's obviously a newer body, since those things tend to get looser with age.
 
Viewfinder is bigger than before. How much bigger, I couldn't say; I've no way of meauring it and my friend didn't know a specific figure, either. But he'd told me before that it felt bigger to him, and looking through it myself, it did seem bigger, to me. Again, though, it's been a while since I looked through an X-T1's viewfinder—even when I had the X-T1, I alway use the rear screen—so I could be misremembering, but the T2's is at least as big as the Sony α7II's, a camera I've used more recently and can compare more clearly.
 
Refresh rate seemed flawless. Way above what the T1, Pro2, or α7II give. Again, I've no way of counting a specific number. I know that thing came out recently about it being 100fps. I don't know how I'd count 100fps. All I can say is we were sat in the back of an average-dimly lit high street coffee shop, and I didn't notice any lag or stuttering or anything. By far the most faultless EVF I've seen. The only way I could tell it wasn't an OVF is because of the brightness and the applied colour profile. (Film simulation.) Otherwise it may as well be an OVF. Hell, it's better than an OVF. Much brighter, under those conditions. If Pro2 owners get to look through this, they're going to question why they spent so much money on having an optical viewfinder. Like I said, no way of giving you specific figures, but I can say that the T2's EVF is by far the best SLR-style viewfinder I've ever looked through.
 
Rear screen, other than the new hinging—yes, it hinges just like Patrick's photos show—seems the same as the Pro2's. It's fine; great, even. It's what I typically use 99.99% of the time. But yeah, nothing special to say here, 'cause Patrick's photos have already shown you all of the hinging. Yes, it tilts up, down, and left and right. Or up and down in landscape and up and down in portrait, if you prefer thinking of it that way. Didn't seem any weaker or tougher than the T1's style of tilting. It's fine, it works, don't worry about it.
 
Yes, it's got 4K. He doesn't shoot video at all, and I don't shoot video with SLR or mirrorless, so this isn't an area either of us care about. I just saw that 4K was mentioned in the menu, and he told me that Fuji had told him it has a 10-minute limit on 4K files. So, kinda the same situation as Nikon's in. (They have a 3-minute limit, right?) But yeah, it's not something either of us uses, so I don't know what else I could tell you about this. But it does it, there. Another thing to tick off on the back of the box for marketing. Other video options remain unchanged from the Pro2, as far as I could see/tell with my limited interest in mirrorless video.
 
Focus on a still subject—my coffee cup—under slightly-dim lighting seemed the same as the Pro2. Used the 23mm f/1.4. Same focus point arrangement as the Pro2. Same joystick for AF point control on the back a the Pro2 has. We already knew it had it, of course, but I've seen some people wish for it to be larger, have more positive movement, etc. It felt exactly the same, to me. So no change there.
Can't say anything on focus tracking. Didn't test it. Not many high-speed subjects in the back of a Starbucks.

Burst rate is faster than the Pro2's. Apparently, Fuji told him it could max out at 9fps. He told me he's experienced some slowdown for focusing, etc, which is normal for any camera. So he reckons 8.5fps is what you actually get. I gave it a quick go just pointing at the table, to see where the buffer would kick in. It didn't seem to last any longer than the Pro2's, but it did get 32 frames of uncompressed raw in the same time span. (About 3 seconds, felt like.) That's about 5 or 6 more than the Pro2 manages, and for the same stretch of time, that does work out to be around 9fps. So I expect Fuji are being honest when they told him 9fps is the max. A dark table in a dim room is a pretty easy and quick scene to capture, so pretty ideal for maxing out the FPS and buffer. Who knows if they'll try to market it as 9fps or 8.5, or even just 8, so people aren't disappointed when it comes to bursting more complex shots. In any case, it got more shots in the same time as the Pro2 does, so we've got a faster burst and a deeper buffer, but ultimately covering the same 3-and-a-bit seconds.
Like I said, just pointed at the table, so I can't speak for how well that keeps up when combined with continuous focus tracking.
I don't know about the boost mode with the grip. Didn't have it on the camera. If they split the burst so it's 8fps without grip, for consistency, and 11fps with the grip for speed, that'd make sense. Having the camera without the grip be capable of 9fps but only shoot at 8fps is a sensible thing to do for the sake of the shutter's lifespan, write speeds, being able to market a deeper buffer, etc. But right there this afternoon, with no grip, it shot above 8fps.
The only thing about the grip I can say is that, having seen the basic body in person, it definitely will be a new grip. There's no way the old grip would be compatible with this body. Different door shapes, different grip depth. Fuji did send the new grip to him with the body, but he's just not a grip user so he's not bothered with it. I am a grip user, so I asked more about it, but yeah, he doesn't use it so not much to say. It's new, it's got that boost mode, and the old grip won't work. Everything we already knew, basically.
 
As far as focusing, burst, and write speeds go, the camera was in the high performance mode. Didn't try putting it in power saving. I can only assume everything slows down in power saving, just like with every other Fuji camera.

Write speed for a single frame felt to be about the same speed as the Pro2, with an SDXC card in the UHS-II slot. This wasn't a technical test, no other cards to try in different slots.

Start up time seems the same as the Pro2 and wake up time felt a tiny bit faster than the Pro2. Couldn't time it, obviously. But it seemed a fraction quicker.

Battery he had in it was the same old NP-W126. I expressed some disappointment on this, because I'm always hoping for larger-capacity batteries. But I remain hopeful, because the battery is one of the things which most commonly changes between pre-production and final release models. I really hope this is changed and we get a bigger capacity for the release. But for what it's worth, this pre-production unit was using the NP-W126, just like the Pro2, Pro1, T1, T10, E2, E1...
 
Nothing new in terms of colour profiles (film simulations), .jpg settings, etc. All the same as the Pro2. No idea on raw handling because, of course, no software supports T2 raws, yet. But my friend said the .jpgs he's been shooting have been identical to the ones out of his Pro2, so yeah. Everything's the same there, as we all expect.

Micro USB port, unlabelled, but it looked to me like a micro B, and he told me Fuji said it's USB 3.0, though he's had no use for it. (Of course, no software right now supports the T2.) That should help for tethering, I suppose? Not that Fuji's tethering is worth a damn. In any case, hey, looks like a micro USB 3.0 port is on the cards. (Though wasn't the Pro2 meant to have micro USB 3.0, too? But that ended up having micro USB 2.0. So I won't be surprised if Fuji decides to be cheap and downgrades the T2 to USB 2.0. But hey, pre-production has 3.0.)
 
Mini HDMI port is still there. I'm guessing that it's a D-type, like the Pro2 has; he didn't know which particular version and I don't know enough about the different types of mini HDMI to identify it. It's unlabelled. In any case, hey, it's there, looks just like it is with the Pro2. Ditto for the audio ports.
 
Doors for battery/port/card access all have the same double action hinge and latch as the Pro2's battery door has. It's just less flimsy than the T1 had. Nothing about them suggested to me that it is any better weather-sealed, though. Feels very much like this is still a 'weather resistant' body and not a 'weather sealed' body.
 
All the stuff people have bizarrely asked for, even though it's obvious it would never have, were indeed not there: no IBIS, no pop-up flash, no CF cards, no APS-H or 35mm sensor, no bayer sensor.

 
 
So, there you have it. Everything I could glean from ~60 seconds with a pre-production X-T2 body. I don't think there's anything else to say, didn't get to give it a proper test or mount my own lenses or memory cards or shoot with it. I'll happily answer questions if I can, but I don't know what else I could say; if you're curious about something which I've not already written about, then chances are it's something I didn't look at or think to ask about. Obviously I'm asking about the camera as much as I can without being annoying, and I hope I'll be able to beg for a little more time with it at some point. But for now, that's about the extent of all I know and saw.
 
This might be interesting to you, it might be boring, I don't know. Just thought I may as well share 'cause I can.