You're probably right considering I never used the LCD to frame pictures on my X100s, I always use the VF.
It would be easier to consider the RX1 if the damn EVF didn't cost another $450!
If you're a VF shooter, don't get the RX1, you'd for sure regret it. What's more important to you, the absolute best IQ possible, or the absolute most enjoyment possible? For me it's always been the latter, don't care what the "best" is, I know what I like, hence all my manual lenses 
Yeap
A stop of depth of field, to me, is a big deal. It's like "ok" to "oh wow" often. Kind of like how 200 F2.8 and 200 F2 look.... so different. Granted, it's more dramatic at that focal length. But I find on a wide lens with a full frame, it does matter. It does less of an effect on a crop, since the magnification keeps you from getting close and crushing depth of field, at lower focal lengths. But it still makes for nicer isolation.
Also, the 35mm F2 IS can focus at just over 9 inches. On a full frame, the depth of field is wonderful here, for isolation.
Very best,
In theory this is true, but I found that my 35/2 gave very similar shots to my EOS M with 22/2, that's why I sold my 35/2. I don't really like 35mm as a FL (nor does the OP) so I didn't bother with the redundancy and I don't think OP should either... I tried to make it grow on me, but 50mm just feels much more natural to me, as does 28mm.
OP, I would sell your X100s and get yourself an X-E2/Pro1/T1 and both the 18mm and 35mm primes, I doubt you'd regret it based on your interests.
