Upload & Sell: Off
I agree the X-E1 doesn't (at least to me) have that typical non-AA filter look. It has very nice clarity, but I think that's because of something else. But the Kodak SLR/c gave stunning results no matter what lens you put on it. To "discredit" the effects of non AA filter by saying it's artifacts and false detail is IMO kind of pointless. Looking at a A3 print or a 1048 px resize from the Kodak, results speak for themselves.
Hey, I'm solely an M9 shooter these days, but it still holds true, as TheSuede has pointed out and illustrated many times. Of course, as pixel count goes up, AA filters will be less and less necessary, but, as its stands now, it is false detail that we're seeing with our AA-less cameras. That being said, it seems that many prefer this look, regardless of where it comes from.
p.s. The big advantage of no AA filter, outside of cost, is that it does improve things at the periphery of the sensor, since the AA filter isn't there to cause astigmatism.