[Zig]

This is neither full, scientific nor very interesting. I merely snapped a couple of static subjects through the apertures from f2.8 to f11. As the X1 makes you have jpegs in addition to whether you want them or DNGs, I chose the "2nd best" Fine setting. I really liked the jpeg output in terms of rendering and colour, finding the (subjective) best results with the contrast, saturation and sharpening all backed off.
As there seemed little point in being exhaustive, I nevertheless thought it would be churlish of me to have shot on the thing without letting you see some. I've just taken some centre details at f2.8 and f5.6, the softest and "sharpest" apertures, judging that you'd be able to guess mcuh of the rest by inference.

First. here are the 2 "scenes" in entirety, at f5.6. There's a bit of forced fill-flash(which I also liked: very subtle) and both are converted at auto settings in ACR 3.7(the highest version supported by CS2) and saved to jpeg.






Now the centres at 100%, first at f2.8 followed by f5.6:









My thoughts so far:
If one is prepared to put the time in to thoughtful conversions from DNG, through 16-bit tiffs and the subtleties of progressive and selective sharpening(quite do-able in ACR as well as Lightroom, there is much detail to be had from the initial files.
In terms of sledgehammer sharpness or that much bandied but rarely understood term, "IQ", you'll either be disappointed or enamoured, depending on your experience and whether you're a glass-half-empty or glass-half-full sorta cat. Me, I'm a sorta glass-half-broken chap...yet I cannot decide whether f2.8 is unacceptably soft or actually quite pleasing. At first, I thought that it was the AF playing up again, but no, this is as sharp as f2.8 gets. Don't ask about edges and corners.
At f5.6 pretty much all zones are as you see: I don't call that very sharp, as I'm now a brat spoilt by exposure to Zeiss, but you might, and thus you'll be well pleased. I have to say too that even upon stopping down from f2.8 to 3.5, there is a dramatic increase in crispness. I found the fall-off equally dramatic by f10 / f11 though.

Mind you, it's not all about sharpness, is it?
Let's have a look at the same shot converted firstly at auto/as shot settings from DNG in ACR....



Now...same shot created simultaneously in camera; remember I'd already set the jpeg output as lo-contrast/saturation and sharpness. I went for Fine quality, though I could have gone to Super Fine to really give the SD card a good caning:



To my eye, that jpeg is pleasingly natural, I have to say...I'm unsure if the DNG conversion in a later version of ACR than 3.7 or in Lightroom would render things less sickly??
There is another point to mention here: the X1's sensor has to me a pleasing dynamic range. It works well with the lens to retain a great amount of subtlety at the low end, rather than blocking up as I would have expected. I personally found it surprising too that jpeg highlights were clipping earlier than I expected.
Here's what I mean: I've taken two areas at 100% from the camera's fine jpeg as seen above: one concentrating on the shadow areas, the other on the highlights in the form of brightly exposed brickwork...see how the brickwork is getting close to blowing out, yet the dark tarmac's tones underneath my car are just about discernible:






Well, there we are.
I would have been seriously happy with the X1 for the £890 I paid for it...if it were new(or at least as new along with all its marque bits, box and warranty card). Mind you, I'd really expect the focusing and writing to be quick enough to actually make use of all the camera has to offer(which of course would include Lightroom....though goodness knows what happens if a new owner is prevented from registering their copy if it is already registered to the previous owner...) In its present form though, its slowness is successfully occluding anything this camera can do.

[Toad]

Well, I guess that I won't be hurting your feelings here as you have already returned this camera, but I'm not that impressed. The color and contrast are pleasingly natural (which means that you can subsequently make them extreme if you want to) but the highlights seem barely under control to me - even under fairly even lighting situations.

All that aside, however, a camera that does not take interchangeable lenses needs to have absolutely stonking killer glass welded to the front. I would say that this Leica lens is inferior sharpness-wise across the board when compared to the 20mm F1.7 that I had on my GF-1. Considering that the 20mm is a $300 lens (and interchangeable), that doesn't rationalize a £900 pound investment to me. I think that you can do better for the money.

[Kombisaurus]

The ACR conversion looks quite a bit out-of-whack to me... almost as if something got lost in the translation. I'm guessing (hoping) it's just a case of the default conversion settings being a bit over-enthusiastic about colour and exposure in ACR. I'd hope that Lightroom would do a much better converting the same raw files.
Clearly the in-camera JPG engine seems to handle things very nicely in terms of colour and exposure though. It's a shame the sharpness isn't up to your expectations Zig.

If ever there were a justifiable case for using a cracked copy of lightroom from one of the web's seedy little backrooms, then your situation is it Zig. If you already have a legal license to use the software (even if you can't produce the warranty code and Leica refuse to supply it) then I can't think of any laws you are breaking by downloading and installing it from elsewhere; even a "pirated" version. After all, as the owner of the camera it is software you have every right to use.

But of course it's a moot point now you've given the camera back.

Good luck solving your 35mm dilemma!

[Zig]

Quite. No, not miffed in the slightest, quite the reverse, and relieved that when I do spend money on camera kit it will not be in something that either shoots itself in the foot or inflates its price because of the resonance of its name. I agree that a prime lens (certainly for me) would have to be "better", though I'm again drawing short of saying "sharper".
I stress that despite the obvious speedand ergonomic issues that for me would preclude its use as a practical tool, there is an air of the tragic about the X1 nonetheless, and I would have remained ignorant of it had I not had the Hands-On: I sincerely think there is something potentially special about the synergy of its lens and sensor combined, that is missed if the argument rotates around sharpness alone. Yes, am playing devil's advocate a bit here, as I'll lose not one iota of sleep upon finding it overpriced and impractical...heck, I can imagine how gutted I'd be if I had hung onto it in pride, crowing about it whilst knowing it was absolute pants in terms of being able to use it.
As it was, though for reasons I won't disclose here, my experience with the X1 did remarkably leave me quids-in. It's also confirmed exactly what my next purchase will actually be, as the X1 was at best a "punt" as it approached something like a "normal", dare I say non-Leica, price.
I've had an additional scary thought: somewhere out there, are people who have not merely got one of these but are gleefully accessorizing with handgrip, case and brightline finder.

[Zig]

Ah, just saw your post Ade: I must have hung on to the camera slightly less than 24 hours. Quite a larf really!