John Isaac's wildlife photos... I'm sure that they're splendid - and I have some good 24" prints made with the E1 as well (at least I think they're good, and they don't have technical issues!) . . . . . . but birds are just one subject ...
Why did you pick birds? And, ironically, right there you have one of the hardest subjects that requires tremendous detail resolution to capture well. Moreso than landscape in my opinion.
... I meant 'relatively' cheap . . . the whole camera is about the price of Leica's cheapest 35mm lens (and around half the price of their 35 f2 summicron). So yes, I was considering prices in comparison with Leica prices, but that's the market this camera is aiming at (isn't it?)
This camera is aiming at the market of people who might
like to have a Leica M design camera but either cannot afford or cannot rationalize the cost of buying one. If I may interpret the market thrust, it is a camera designed to allow one to buy a Leica M type design and user interface, and Leica M type quality, at a fraction the price. What is given up to achieve the price is the red dot itself and interchangeable lenses, not quality. At least that's what I hope Fuji's achieved. ;-)
"Cheap" is the wrong word, it connotes poor quality. As Tom suggested, you meant "inexpensive". Of course, hopefully!, people spending three times the cost of the X100 on a Leica lens ought to expect that lens to perform better. But it's difficult to say whether that is true or not, given that all we have to work with are samples that someone else made.
(I'm ahead of you on jettisoning the unused cameras at this point. Aside from the box or three of older film camera stuff, all I have are the E-5 and E-1 at this point, and a couple of lenses I'd bought for the G1 that I haven't put on the market yet. I'm using both the E-5 and E-1 all the time ... My interest in the X100 is that it fits a situation like this morning, where something compact, minimal, with just a fast wide lens would have been a nicer thing to carry.)