Latest Fuji X-trans vs Bayer, has X-trans lost it already?

Bill Ferris wrote:

Canadianguy wrote:

Why is anyone surprised when people start to questions the claims made by them – especially when they started to move back to Bayer for their top tier and lowest tier products instead. (GFX and X-T200).

Asking the question isn't surprising, to me. In fact, I'd say it's rather natural and normal to be curious about such things. However, when the differences in performance - if there are differences - require pixel peeping at 1:1 to be seen, that's when I suggest exiting the theater in an orderly manner and moving on to more relevant issues.

Well, if you can't see the IQ difference between two sensors without pixel-peeping, then may be IQ of X-trans is not different from Bayers one, what's the point of X-trans then?

For example, I would never discourage a person from buying a Fuji camera built around a Bayer sensor, just because it's a Bayer sensor. I'd focus more on the fit of the controls, features, interface, etc. with the person's expressed photographic interests.

Nobody in decent mind is going to claim that X-A5 is a better camera than X-Pro3, so what you say is well agreed and accepted. But my original post was not comparing cameras, controls and AF. It was about the fuss made by Fuji about superiority their X-Trans sensor which seems to be a bit misleading today.

Their own OOC jpegs show that it's the other way around for OOC shooters. When it comes to raws Bayer is as good if not better than X-trans,

So I simply wonder now if Fujifilm X-Trans strategy still makes sense today or may be we should expect X-T5 to be with Bayer sensor.

Anyway, I do apologise if you find the images comparing capabilities of the two sensors offending. That wasn't my intention.