Here's some
data that compares the technical performance of the X100T, V and F. These measurements indicate the signal-to-noise ratio is similar for these three cameras.
Similar
data compares the camera read noise increase with ISO. The F and V models are about 2/3 stops better than than the T.
I can not find data for the original X100 or X100S. I started using the first generation X100 in February 2011. I sold it to buy the X-Pro 1. Then in November 2015 I purchased a X100T.
Unlike the original X100, the 100T, F and V use XTrans sensor technology. My X100 displayed color banding in shadow regions at camera ISO settings above 800. My X100T has no observable color banding up to ISO 3200. Neither did my X-Pro 1, X-T1 or X-Pro 2. The original X100 sensor technology is four years older than the T. The technical performance (analog signal-to-noise ratio) for all camera brands improved significantly between 2011 and 2016. I do not consider it speculation to say the X100 cameras did as well.
Increased technical image quality offers more flexibility. At the same time increased technical image quality does not necessarily translate to superior aesthetic image quality. Image rendering preferences are entirely subjective. I agree X100 images render differently than the T, F or V. Speaking for myself, I find it naive to doubt any photographer's image aesthetic preferences. For instance, I happen to like how X100T low light (i.e. low exposure) images render in monochrome.
I will preface what I am about to say by first saying that I am a painter; a "fine artist", for lack of a better term. I use cameras to make art in the same way I use gouache, ink, watercolor or oils to make paintings. Technically, I probably suck at photography.
All of what you wrote may indeed be true.That being said, I still find that the images I get from the original are superior. Perhaps not from a "technical" standpoint, but superior nevertheless.
Visual artists don't bother with numbers. We use the tools and materials that yield the results we require.
It is why I prefer oils to acrylics. Acrylics make sense economically, are easier to use, and clean up with plain water.
But oil paint has a resonance that even the best acrylic painters have a difficult time achieving, if they can achieve it at all.
The X100s, in my opinion, is a fantastic DIGITAL camera.
The x100 is a fantastic camera, in SPITE of being digital.
Numbers, mft charts, yada yada yada, is all fine and dandy. I use what allows me to make pretty pictures. The original X100 produced images that do not look digital to me. I don't like the "digital look".
I also think the Fuji S3, slow and cumbersome as it is, is a a better camera for making art than the X100s, or any of the legion of digital cameras I have owned and used (Nikon D1x, D100, D200, D300, D300S, 5D, 7D, D70 Fuji s5, and countless digital Rebels) and some others I have likely forgotten.
Just opinin'.
