I'm not sure I agree. Although you may be technically correct, in a real world usage situation and then reviewing the outputs, you will always get sharper images from the Sony. How do I know? I have been running a Sony A7R for close to 3 years and also a X-Pro2 for almost 1 (before that, I also ran the X-E1 and X-T1) and contemplating getting the X-T2 as my second Fuji body.
I had contemplated getting rid of the Sony altogether when I got the X-Pro 2 to finance the X-T2, I always run two bodies when I shoot and when I got rid of the X-T1 I wanted as replacement but I just couldn't. The Sony sucks balls to use, the Sony also takes more work in post but when you get it right, the files can sing. Now I'm just contemplating just spending the extra $$$ to buy the X-T2 anyway. Both cameras are good but for different reasons.
I have an X-Pro2 with the XF10-24mm. I have the A7R with the FE16-35mm. Which would I choose when I go out shooting landscapes, the Sony pretty much all the time. The only time where the difference is minimal and not enough to care is when the XF14mm is mounted to the X-Pro2, so if I don't need anything wider than 21mm, I sometimes pick the X-Pro2 and XF14mm but generally the X-Pro2 and XF10-24 can not beat the A7R and FE16-35mm.
I am with you on this one which is why I just could not let go. The Sony only comes out on a special purpose use. I have sold almost all my Sony lenses except for 2, the FE16-35mm wide angle zoom and the Zeiss 50mm f1.5 m-mount lens. The files are great and the tonal graduations in good light really do sing.