Has anyone come across a good comparison of IQ for photos (particularly RAW photos) between the X-A5 (with it's Bayer sensor) vs. Fujifilm cameras such as the X-E3 & X-T20 with the X-Trans sensors?
More detail about why I am asking:
I am looking to get another camera. I know (at least outside of Asia) the X-A series doesn't get as much love because it is more of an entry level "selfie" build. However, I've been very happy with my X-A3 and I am looking for another Fujifilm camera and will keep the X-A3 as a spare. I am leaning towards an X-E3 but while I've heard bad things about the video on the X-A5 (and I know about the other "spec sheet"/feature differences), I've seen some good reviews about it's ability to take photographs and even an unsupported claims that for stills it would be better (I think that was someone that just really liked Bayer vs. X-Trans and not someone with any experience with the camera so I take that with less than a grain of salt).
I'm not worried about video quality because I don't take video.
Incidentally, I don't think the EVF of the X-E3 (or the viewfinder on the X-T20) is all that important to me. While I'll understand why people want a view finder, I don't miss it on my X-A3 and I've always had issues with my eyes seeing well with viewfinders (or telescopes, etc.) with cameras going back to my film days; therefore seeing the image on the screen works well for me.
I guess what I am ultimately asking is what justifies the extra cost of an X-E3 or X-T20 over an X-A5 for a hobbyist that takes mostly landscapes and travel photos.
FWIW: I used to do a lot of film photography and stopped doing much photography at all when digital cameras started out. I bought the X-A3 to see if I would actually do it enough to justify buying a more expensive camera planning on getting a more "pro" camera latter if I did (and using the X-A3 as a backup). I've been quite happy with the X-A3.