No, the point of QFT is that everything is fields, there are no particles. In a quantum field theory, the energy levels of excited states of the field are quantised, just like the energy levels of a harmonic oscillator are quantised: the finite bundle of energy arising because of quantisation is what one calls a particle.
It is an accident of history that the phenomenon of light was first successfully addressed by classical field theory, whereas the phenomenon of massive particles was first addressed by classical point-particle mechanics, with particles interacting with fields. If the wave nature of matter and the particle nature of light had been noticed earlier, maybe things would have developed differently.
For those who really believe in 'particles', I'd be interested to hear how you understand the 'indistinguishability of identical particles' in QM if it isn't with reference to an underlying field excitation picture for quantum particles. I was never happy with those red and green electrons which far too often appear in explanations!
As for what a field really is, sure that might remain a bit of an ontological mystery, but if we're reductionists its better to only have one mystery to explain than two.
Good point. (There's nothing to argue, what you said is correct) My honest opinion is that red and green dots are wrong. I think once we figure out what a field is, we can then figure out what the excitations in the field are, and therefore 'point particles' will be redefined correctly.