OK, as indicated, here are two files saved at 100 quality jpeg, cropped to be 100% on a 30" screen. Obviously labelled, I took care to try to match the two as nearly as practical without indulging in wild manipulations with such controls as clarity & contrast etc. I make the following observations: there is bugger all difference in practical use terms between the two, LightZone or C1 with this sort of low-contrast subject matter. The zippering effect is readily visible in the veins of the insect's wings in the LZ example, whereas C1 seems to boost dark and light lines to cover this, but enlarge another 100% and you'll see that this brings its own jaggy problems. Practically, in a normal sized print, these flaws are all but invisible and of no consequence.
What is apparent is that C1 has employed smoothing mechanisms, partially for the zippering effect I suppose, but also for what they apparently see to be the "flaw" of the grain effect that this Fuji sensor displays. What this does is mash ultra-fine detail, although fine detail is artificially accentuated by the smoothing/sharpening addition they've deemed necessary to add. The LZ looks a bit coarser overall, and slightly less sharp as a consequence, but in turn for its smoother look the C1 loses the definition of the micro-lenses in the dragonfly's eyes and the C1 displays some rather nasty artifacts in this area in return. Looked at ultra-critically, if capturing the maximum detail was important, the C1 performs less well - LZ might look less sharp, but it resolves the information better. Sharpness and resolution are not the same thing.
C1 also produces some very small artifacts similar to jpeg compression lines in smooth areas where it has gone to work on the grain. Also not a problem in normal use, but they are there. In the previous pond file I posted, the effect can be seen though in the vegetation rendering, not as bad as ACR, but also still there.
Given that the C1 was obviously default sharpened, which LZ was not, I did sharpen both slightly to the level that I'd normally take my LZ files, namely a 15% "Sharpen Fine Detail" in Helicon Filter, with slightly less than that for the C1 file. At this point the LZ file would stand a lot more sharpening than the C1 file owing to the larger artifacts of C1, but at the expense of further accentuating the zipper effect on the dark lines.
What this shows, I guess, is that we still don't have a "proper" and flawless decoding of the X-Trans sensor, but things are far better than the initial SilkyPix and ACR attempts would have had us believe was possible. Can't wait for a full resolution of the problem.
These observations are a bit irrelevant, other than I like the film-grain look of LZ and deplore C1's mandatory default attempt to get rid of it for the plastic digital look. In practical usage, though, it comes down to the following - $300 and a nightmare ride into the world of importing, renaming, cataloging, exporting, more navigating and naming, duplications and obscure command names, and generally more farting around than Penny in a shoe shop, or a free, straightforward processing program, albeit on which might give those who haven't come across the Zone System a bit of research to do for maximum benefit.
No prizes for guessing who'll be saving $300.