Well, if Canon gets rid of the low-pass filter I will probably not buy a Canon again. I realize some folks prefer "razor sharp" images, but having at least one camera that has no low-pass filter, I strongly prefer the images from cameras that do. I prefer more realistic looking landscapes - not pics that seem artificially sharp. The human eye sees the large shapes and tends to ignore interior detail (Yes, they have done research on this) so it looks much more natural to see trees and not every single leaf - almost as if it is outlined. That's just my opiion, of course, but I have taken pics with my Olympus EM-1 (no filter) that go into the bin becaue of outlines that aren't really there and way too much detail that ruins some shots.
One of the most bizarre comments I've ever seen on here. I don't know what you're reviewing your pictures on, or how you're post processing them from camera, or what your eyesight is like, or what sort of vision processing is going on in your brain. (I do see "EOS 77D" under your profile name.) I can tell you that I shoot mostly landscapes with a 5DsR with RAW output, and then I do some sharpening in Adobe Camera Raw and then a final Smart Sharpening in PS. I'm using a 43 inch 4K Philips monitor, so unless someone's out there using a special 8K TV set of some sort as a monitor, what I'm using is about the most revealing possible PC monitor you can have. (And BTW, it shows oversharpened images easily, and they range from bad to hideous.)
And the final result in many images is like looking out your window, or standing there looking at the scene. There is no "too much detail" (???) to be found. (Oversharpening via software does NOT create detail, it creates unnatural artifacts.) Granted, like the vast majority of photogs colors are enhanced but still natural looking, and in general acheivable with optimum lighting on the scene. If there's haze at all I work to cut it (including via the smart sharpen step), but again the final result is natural and what you would see on a clear to very clear day.
I can understand people who shoot a lot patterns not wanting to deal with moire and thus wanting an AA filter, but "too much detail" is just much too bizarre. Your claim about what the human eye sees also sounds ridiculous, as it would be highy dependent on the viewer, how long the viewer was pondering the scene, and what elements of the scene would tend to catch the viewer's eye. Other than quick glances, I'm certain most viewers are noticing various detailed elements.