OK, so here's a small demo. It's not dramatic, the differences are pretty subtle. All shots are 100% crops of the same RAF file, which has had very little done to it.
I set X-Transformer to apply no sharpening, so that we can compare apples to apples.
One shot shows the RAF sharpened in LR at 40%. It's not horrible, but the X-transformer version shows noticeably more detail when sharpened to the same 40% in LR. The third shot is the original RAF sharpened to 80% in LR, which is my best estimate for a version that matches the X-Transformer version for detail. It's still not terrible, but if you look at the flatter stone surfaces, you can see the worms just starting to appear.
Again, it's all quite subtle, and would only be noticeable in large prints, if at all.
My conclusion is that X-Transformer, by pulling more detail out of the RAF, stops me from having to apply as much sharpening, thus reducing the likelihood of worms. Of course, this may be wrong.
It's not so much an attempt to convince anyone that I'm right, more an explanation of why I have the opinions that I do.
And obviously, this is with the X-T10. With the X-T2, it may be quite a different story.
LR 40 sharpen by
dave.hallett on Talk Photography
X-transformer 40 sharpen by
dave.hallett on Talk Photography
LR 80 sharpen by
dave.hallett on Talk Photography