Yes,
as I said above -
The remote cable socket is behind a separate (TINY) door/flap ABOVE the memory card slots - on the OTHER side of the camera from the other receptacles. The E3 should look like a stereo headphone plug - like the Canon remote.

I have 3 Fuji cameras and 6 lenses. I leave the 18-55 on the XE1 and the 18-135 on the XT1 most of the time - (unless there's a reason for a prime). I hiked a week through the White Mountains of NH with the XT1 + 18-135 - bringing also the 35 1.4. and 14. I've been very happy with the range of DoF and the focus and have never noticed CA with it. (I have tri-focal eye-glasses with heavy prescription and experience terrible CA with those!). The only negative comment I think of is that the lens tube tends slide out (extend) when carrying with it hanging down. Since it's biggish it WANTS to hang down too. Be sure you have a decent bag that will carry it nicely. I use a shoulder pouch from an Army Navy store. It has a large plastic clip (no Velcro) for a flap lid and I inserted the bottom of a large rectangular plastic juice bottle with padding in the bottom. This keeps the bag receptive to the camera - and I love it - even while hiking. I attach (molle) a water bottle pouch to hold two prime lenses when wanted. AS I look through my shots, the super-majority are taken with the 18-135.

I read that the remote cable socket is behind a separate (tiny) door above the memory card slots - on the other side of the camera from the other receptacles. The E3 should look like a stereo headphone plug - also like the Canon remote.
Now I have a question for you:
I have and love the XT1 - and upgraded to XT2 JUST BEFORE the XT3 came on the scene. The rear dial on the XT2 drives me mad. I have watchmaker's skin (=dry) and cannot rotate the rear dial without accidentally also pressing it - unless I wear an extra-large finger cot on my thumb.
IS the XT3 rear dial better? Can you rotate it without pressing it?

I have a 12-year-old school-system-discarded Win7 SP1 i5-quad 8gb machine and everything installed fine as an update to Luminar 2018. I was prompted to specify what I wanted to import into Library and the 43,000+ were added in about 20 minutes.
I find that my usual hygienic measure of closing other taxing applications is warranted with Luminar though. The Windows version feels like it's done as an afterthought to Mac thinking - not a Win ground-up thing. Seems to step on (conflict with resources) other applications if they're open and hang if I don't clean things up first. Otherwise works fine.
This just about hits a sweet spot for me. I can't justify purchasing LR and such for a hobby. Luminar understands Fujifilm RAW (I went to X-series from film-SLR because it felt more familiar to my hands and thinking).
I do miss such elementary things such as patching the occasional red-eye.
I am satisfied with the software if I regard it as a digital darkroom-in-the-basement.
So, perhaps my trailing-edge technologies, "if it works, don't update it" approach is paying off yet again.
(I still use DOS-5 to run ForTran-77 astronomical routines I wrote in the early '80s. They work like-new)
Good luck.

It doesn't look like CA to me.
I have strong prescription glasses and was given high density lenses once - to try and make them less thick. They had terrible CA, so I'm all too familiar with the look.

You might look into the phenomenon of "shadow color", for example here: (which I find hastily with a google search)
http://www.peachpit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=486505&seqNum=3
Shadow colors occur as a combination of lighting colors cast shadows into each other. A strong yellow-orange direct lighting (from a low sun for instance) casting a shadow into whiter light (say from the upper atmosphere) will make the shadow of yellow-orange light look blue on a white surface.
Shadow colors are a very interesting and striking phenomenon to demonstrate. And they appear in photographs. A zoomed-in photograph, removed from lighting context can make the color look out of place - but if there were a Sun in the right of the image it would look totally natural to the eye.

I'll betcha it's that darn spellchecker gone hyper-active.
I'm always having to undo spellcheck corrections until I finally lobotomize the thing.
As the inimitable Florence King titled one of her books: "stet dammit!"

Oh yes, and my vote is for body first.
Find a camera that has the right ergonomics for you - then save your pennies for lenses.
Until then use an adaptor if necessary.
The IQ has a great deal to do with how well the camera and you interact to capture the shot as intended - be it in-the-moment or carefully composed. After a good while, look at the shots you like and see what focal length you prefer and buy a prime.

When I started with the Fuji (XE1, then XT1) I was also disappointedly surprised by how short the battery life was, and bought an extra battery to keep ready in the bottom of my bag.
I then noticed that my battery life increased significantly as it gained cycle experience.
At first I set the camera to mute the rear screen, use eye detection in the EVF and turned off "high performance".
Now I use the rear screen to display settings (like an SLR), the EVF on eye detection and leave high performance on - and am no longer frustrated by battery life surprises. Some, but not all, of this is probably due to changes in my expectation. But the increase is real.
One thing that I do still do (for other reasons as well) is to program a button to take only the next shot in RAW - but otherwise leave RAW off. The jpgs are great and I only use RAW if I have severe issues with White Balance uncertainty or otherwise specifically wish to fiddle with RAW later. This means a lot quicker write time and less pointless power drain.

But it will never equal the SLR battery life. Just forget that.

Yes, but use aluminum foil instead of a sheet of paper to make your pinhole in. Aluminum foil isn't translucent - and it makes for a crisper pinhole.
A "camera obscura" such as this is a nice way to watch the Moon cross the face of the Sun - and one could take interval photos of the screen too - for those who will not be in the path of total eclipse. BUT -

I avoid the screen and such IF I am in the path of totality - since even looking at the bright image on the screen reduces visual sensitivity to the spectacle during totality. I like dusk-adapted vision for that.
The screen is great AFTER totality though.

As a veteran eclipse viewer with undamaged vision I can state that it is absolutely SAFE, and NECESSARY, to view a TOTAL eclipse WITHOUT eye protection. Eye protection IS necessary before and after 100% totality though (one may use certified welder's glass of "shade 14").
Do not spoil your view of the magnificence of totality by even glancing at the last residual light preceding 100% coverage! Instead it is good to behold the terrestrial environ as totality approaches. The changes in the quality of illumination is stunning. Objects appear in sharper focus and softer light. I avoid even looking at bright projections of the Sun before totality as the dazzling of the eyesight can spoil the view of the brief period of coronal magnificence.
Again, PROTECTION IS NECESSARY to view the SUN if it is not 100% eclipsed; but do not spoil your view of 100% by wearing eye protection then. I DO NOT recommend using telescopes/binoculars to view totality - because you may damage your eyes when the first direct rays emerge again - and you miss the wonderful context of the greater scene besides.

I'll add a two cents here as my first action on Ugly Hedgehog. This won't apply to the Samsung - but I use a Fuji XE1 and XT1 and have not yet been tempted to buy any processing/editing software. Sometimes I goof on the white balance or exposure compensation though - so when in doubt about that I shoot my best-guess-jpeg - and raw. If I like the jpeg I chuck the raw - but THE CAMERA can produce new jpegs from the raw file! I can mess with color, film simulation, brightness etc. in the camera - even B&W and crank out great jpegs with alternative settings in a short time. No, it won't replace editing software - but it can recover a goof to my satisfaction (or delight!). So in normal circumstances I use jpeg, and in weird or critical circumstances use jpeg+raw. I'm not prejudiced against software - but the cost/learning/time curve is a significant speed-bump for this amateur.