What do you think about half frame and the new Pentax 17

[HellasPeris]

I'm looking at the flickr photos from the new pentax 17. Although I'd call them sharp, there's something I don't like about the half frame. I don't know it could be the lens which is close to 40 38mm if I'm not mistaken. The quality of the photos is not great, but the concept of the camera is fantastic. I would prefer it in normal format with manual A aperture. What do you think? It is believed that the half frame is here to stay?

https://www.flickr.com/groups/pentax17/pool/

 

[mollyc]

Half frame cameras have been around since the 1960s. It's not a new concept at all. I think it was a bold and daring move by Pentax to make this their first move back into film cameras since many half frames have a short life now with their selenium batteries.

You will rarely get perfect sharpness on a half frame just due to the resolution, but I have seen some really great photos that are perfectly acceptable in terms of sharpness from people who nail the zone focus.

That said, it's true that many people dislike the half frame resolution and setup, and it won't be a camera for everyone. That's okay. It's selling like hotcakes and getting Pentax back into new film cameras, which is good for everyone on this forum.

 

[Mike B USA]

I'm looking at the flickr photos from the new pentax 17. Although I'd call them sharp, there's something I don't like about the half frame.

If you don't like the vertical, portrait format, this isn't the camera for you.

I don't know it could be the lens which is close to 40 38mm if I'm not mistaken. The quality of the photos is not great, but the concept of the camera is fantastic.

If your definition of a quality photo begins and ends with resolution, this isn't the camera for you. The photos I've seen are sharp with decent contrast. The color rendition is purely a function of the film (and scanning, if you scan).

I would prefer it in normal format with manual A aperture. What do you think? It is believed that the half frame is here to stay?

The 35mm half frame film format has been around for more than 60 years. Who knows if yet another half frame camera will ever be produced. Nobody would have predicted this one.

This is a niche camera. Nobody would buy this for their one and only camera. I plan to pick one up from the next batch. It's a tool and a pretty cool one.

 

[robbo d]

It's designed primarily for young people with social media posting and snapshots in mind.

It's the start of the film "project" which we are to believe is going to be part of a range of cameras.

It's niche and must be understood as such.

For hi resolution or larger prints use 35mm full frame or digital.

I think it's a cool little camera but not for me but I'm sure hopeful that by it's success brings along a big brother in the near future.

A nicely built film SLR of the size / design of an mz5n or an ME super

Impressed by the brave move to bring film back.

However I hope the digital faithful get their k1mkiii next

 

[Heritage Cameras]

The 35mm half frame film format has been around for more than 60 years.

Actually it's over 115 years since the first camera taking half frame images on 35mm film:

http://corsopolaris.net/supercameras/early/early_135.html

...and it predated the "full frame" 24x36mm format by three years. Half frame or square format cameras dominated the 35mm market for quite a few years before the first Leicas popularised the larger size.

Interestingly the first 35mm still camera (the film was used in movie cameras first) was made in 1905, and took 24x60mm images. Almost XPan panoramic format!

--
Dave, HCL

 

[Overrank]

There’s a video on YouTube by Analogue Wonderland (film shop / lab in the UK) where they have made up some A3 prints, and the quality is fine at that size.



As others have said half frame as a still film format been around for over 60 years, and longer for 35mm movie film. It’s been very popular recently with the Kodak H35, and this Pentax seems to have been very successful too.

 

[ishwanu]

I'm looking at the flickr photos from the new pentax 17. Although I'd call them sharp, there's something I don't like about the half frame. I don't know it could be the lens which is close to 40 38mm if I'm not mistaken.

It's a 'small sensor' camera, with the inherent consequences. I haven't seen any tests of the lens itself, but it seems okay for a three element lens.

The quality of the photos is not great, but the concept of the camera is fantastic.

Which concepts are fantastic?

I would prefer it in normal format with manual A aperture.

I'm sure the next one will use the familiar horizontal 135 format.

What do you think? It is believed that the half frame is here to stay?

In addition to other formats, yes.

 

[HellasPeris]

I'm looking at the flickr photos from the new pentax 17. Although I'd call them sharp, there's something I don't like about the half frame. I don't know it could be the lens which is close to 40 38mm if I'm not mistaken.

It's a 'small sensor' camera, with the inherent consequences. I haven't seen any tests of the lens itself, but it seems okay for a three element lens.

The quality of the photos is not great, but the concept of the camera is fantastic.

Which concepts are fantastic?

The concept of producing the first small film camera after almost 20 years of digital cameras. It's very brave and the design of project 17 is fabulous.

I would prefer it in normal format with manual A aperture.

I'm sure the next one will use the familiar horizontal 135 format.

What do you think? It is believed that the half frame is here to stay?

In addition to other formats, yes.

 

[Overrank]

I'm looking at the flickr photos from the new pentax 17. Although I'd call them sharp, there's something I don't like about the half frame. I don't know it could be the lens which is close to 40 38mm if I'm not mistaken.

It's a 'small sensor' camera, with the inherent consequences. I haven't seen any tests of the lens itself, but it seems okay for a three element lens.

The quality of the photos is not great, but the concept of the camera is fantastic.

Which concepts are fantastic?

The concept of producing the first small film camera after almost 20 years of digital cameras. It's very brave and the design of project 17 is fabulous.

I think the Pentax 17 is a breath of fresh air and hope it’s very successful and the first of many . All the things that the camera has been bashed for, both on here and elsewhere: lack of resolution, graininess, “verticalness” of the camera (as if you can’t rotate it), lack of “proper” controls, are (IMO) based on a misunderstanding of how it will be used by the target audience.

I would prefer it in normal format with manual A aperture.

I'm sure the next one will use the familiar horizontal 135 format.

As a thought experiment, what if it isn’t? What if it’s the first of a line of half frame cameras? People love the PENs and they still sell well on eBay. With modern films (Vision3, Portra) and good scanning, half frame may well be enough for most people.

What do you think? It is believed that the half frame is here to stay?

In addition to other formats, yes.

 

[ishwanu]

... The quality of the photos is not great, but the concept of the camera is fantastic.

Which concepts are fantastic?

The concept of producing the first small film camera after almost 20 years of digital cameras. It's very brave and the design of project 17 is fabulous.

I know the camera will be enjoyed by many, but I don't see what's fantastic about it. Is there something that makes it more fantastic than other half frame cameras apart from the fact that it's new? When you mention the project, I suppose you're talking about the expected expansion of the film camera line, which is indeed a gutsy thing to undertake.

I would prefer it in normal format with manual A aperture.

I'm sure the next one will use the familiar horizontal 135 format.

What do you think? It is believed that the half frame is here to stay?

In addition to other formats, yes.

 

[ishwanu]

I'm looking at the flickr photos from the new pentax 17. Although I'd call them sharp, there's something I don't like about the half frame. I don't know it could be the lens which is close to 40 38mm if I'm not mistaken.

It's a 'small sensor' camera, with the inherent consequences. I haven't seen any tests of the lens itself, but it seems okay for a three element lens.

The quality of the photos is not great, but the concept of the camera is fantastic.

Which concepts are fantastic?

The concept of producing the first small film camera after almost 20 years of digital cameras. It's very brave and the design of project 17 is fabulous.

I think the Pentax 17 is a breath of fresh air and hope it’s very successful and the first of many . All the things that the camera has been bashed for, both on here and elsewhere: lack of resolution, graininess, “verticalness” of the camera (as if you can’t rotate it), lack of “proper” controls, are (IMO) based on a misunderstanding of how it will be used by the target audience.

I didn't say it's bad for the target audience. I just asked what makes it fantastic.

I would prefer it in normal format with manual A aperture.

I'm sure the next one will use the familiar horizontal 135 format.

As a thought experiment, what if it isn’t? What if it’s the first of a line of half frame cameras? People love the PENs and they still sell well on eBay. With modern films (Vision3, Portra) and good scanning, half frame may well be enough for most people.

If that's how it goes, then I guess the OP will be disappointed.

What do you think? It is believed that the half frame is here to stay?

In addition to other formats, yes.

 

[Overrank]

I'm looking at the flickr photos from the new pentax 17. Although I'd call them sharp, there's something I don't like about the half frame. I don't know it could be the lens which is close to 40 38mm if I'm not mistaken.

It's a 'small sensor' camera, with the inherent consequences. I haven't seen any tests of the lens itself, but it seems okay for a three element lens.

The quality of the photos is not great, but the concept of the camera is fantastic.

Which concepts are fantastic?

The concept of producing the first small film camera after almost 20 years of digital cameras. It's very brave and the design of project 17 is fabulous.

I think the Pentax 17 is a breath of fresh air and hope it’s very successful and the first of many . All the things that the camera has been bashed for, both on here and elsewhere: lack of resolution, graininess, “verticalness” of the camera (as if you can’t rotate it), lack of “proper” controls, are (IMO) based on a misunderstanding of how it will be used by the target audience.

I didn't say it's bad for the target audience. I just asked what makes it fantastic.

It’s new, you get a warranty, you can have it serviced and fixed by Pentax. Most importantly there’s a high likelihood that it will work and so won’t disappoint new film users.

There are many people who come to this forum having bought some old camera off eBay only to find out the meter doesn’t work, or the shutter is capping, or that it simply doesn’t work at all. By the time they find this out they’re two rolls of film, development and scanning in and really don’t want to spend more money on a CLA

I would prefer it in normal format with manual A aperture.

I'm sure the next one will use the familiar horizontal 135 format.

As a thought experiment, what if it isn’t? What if it’s the first of a line of half frame cameras? People love the PENs and they still sell well on eBay. With modern films (Vision3, Portra) and good scanning, half frame may well be enough for most people.

If that's how it goes, then I guess the OP will be disappointed.

I think it would disappoint a lot of people on these forums, but it’s based on the mantra that technical image quality is all that matters, when it’s often the thing that matters least

What do you think? It is believed that the half frame is here to stay?

In addition to other formats, yes.

 

[ishwanu]

I'm looking at the flickr photos from the new pentax 17. Although I'd call them sharp, there's something I don't like about the half frame. I don't know it could be the lens which is close to 40 38mm if I'm not mistaken.

It's a 'small sensor' camera, with the inherent consequences. I haven't seen any tests of the lens itself, but it seems okay for a three element lens.

The quality of the photos is not great, but the concept of the camera is fantastic.

Which concepts are fantastic?

The concept of producing the first small film camera after almost 20 years of digital cameras. It's very brave and the design of project 17 is fabulous.

I think the Pentax 17 is a breath of fresh air and hope it’s very successful and the first of many . All the things that the camera has been bashed for, both on here and elsewhere: lack of resolution, graininess, “verticalness” of the camera (as if you can’t rotate it), lack of “proper” controls, are (IMO) based on a misunderstanding of how it will be used by the target audience.

I didn't say it's bad for the target audience. I just asked what makes it fantastic.

It’s new, you get a warranty, you can have it serviced and fixed by Pentax. Most importantly there’s a high likelihood that it will work and so won’t disappoint new film users.

There are many people who come to this forum having bought some old camera off eBay only to find out the meter doesn’t work, or the shutter is capping, or that it simply doesn’t work at all. By the time they find this out they’re two rolls of film, development and scanning in and really don’t want to spend more money on a CLA

If that's the case, the correct statement is 'Having the benefits associated with a new camera vs. a potentially problematic old camera is fantastic - whether or not the camera itself is fantastic.'

I would prefer it in normal format with manual A aperture.

I'm sure the next one will use the familiar horizontal 135 format.

As a thought experiment, what if it isn’t? What if it’s the first of a line of half frame cameras? People love the PENs and they still sell well on eBay. With modern films (Vision3, Portra) and good scanning, half frame may well be enough for most people.

If that's how it goes, then I guess the OP will be disappointed.

I think it would disappoint a lot of people on these forums, but it’s based on the mantra that technical image quality is all that matters, when it’s often the thing that matters least

What do you think? It is believed that the half frame is here to stay?

In addition to other formats, yes.

 

[Overrank]

I'm looking at the flickr photos from the new pentax 17. Although I'd call them sharp, there's something I don't like about the half frame. I don't know it could be the lens which is close to 40 38mm if I'm not mistaken.

It's a 'small sensor' camera, with the inherent consequences. I haven't seen any tests of the lens itself, but it seems okay for a three element lens.

The quality of the photos is not great, but the concept of the camera is fantastic.

Which concepts are fantastic?

The concept of producing the first small film camera after almost 20 years of digital cameras. It's very brave and the design of project 17 is fabulous.

I think the Pentax 17 is a breath of fresh air and hope it’s very successful and the first of many . All the things that the camera has been bashed for, both on here and elsewhere: lack of resolution, graininess, “verticalness” of the camera (as if you can’t rotate it), lack of “proper” controls, are (IMO) based on a misunderstanding of how it will be used by the target audience.

I didn't say it's bad for the target audience. I just asked what makes it fantastic.

It’s new, you get a warranty, you can have it serviced and fixed by Pentax. Most importantly there’s a high likelihood that it will work and so won’t disappoint new film users.

There are many people who come to this forum having bought some old camera off eBay only to find out the meter doesn’t work, or the shutter is capping, or that it simply doesn’t work at all. By the time they find this out they’re two rolls of film, development and scanning in and really don’t want to spend more money on a CLA

If that's the case, the correct statement is 'Having the benefits associated with a new camera vs. a potentially problematic old camera is fantastic - whether or not the camera itself is fantastic.'

I didn’t say it was fantastic. I’m not sure why the semantics matter either

I would prefer it in normal format with manual A aperture.

I'm sure the next one will use the familiar horizontal 135 format.

As a thought experiment, what if it isn’t? What if it’s the first of a line of half frame cameras? People love the PENs and they still sell well on eBay. With modern films (Vision3, Portra) and good scanning, half frame may well be enough for most people.

If that's how it goes, then I guess the OP will be disappointed.

I think it would disappoint a lot of people on these forums, but it’s based on the mantra that technical image quality is all that matters, when it’s often the thing that matters least

What do you think? It is believed that the half frame is here to stay?

In addition to other formats, yes.

 

[ishwanu]

I'm looking at the flickr photos from the new pentax 17. Although I'd call them sharp, there's something I don't like about the half frame. I don't know it could be the lens which is close to 40 38mm if I'm not mistaken.

It's a 'small sensor' camera, with the inherent consequences. I haven't seen any tests of the lens itself, but it seems okay for a three element lens.

The quality of the photos is not great, but the concept of the camera is fantastic.

Which concepts are fantastic?

The concept of producing the first small film camera after almost 20 years of digital cameras. It's very brave and the design of project 17 is fabulous.

I think the Pentax 17 is a breath of fresh air and hope it’s very successful and the first of many . All the things that the camera has been bashed for, both on here and elsewhere: lack of resolution, graininess, “verticalness” of the camera (as if you can’t rotate it), lack of “proper” controls, are (IMO) based on a misunderstanding of how it will be used by the target audience.

I didn't say it's bad for the target audience. I just asked what makes it fantastic.

It’s new, you get a warranty, you can have it serviced and fixed by Pentax. Most importantly there’s a high likelihood that it will work and so won’t disappoint new film users.

There are many people who come to this forum having bought some old camera off eBay only to find out the meter doesn’t work, or the shutter is capping, or that it simply doesn’t work at all. By the time they find this out they’re two rolls of film, development and scanning in and really don’t want to spend more money on a CLA

If that's the case, the correct statement is 'Having the benefits associated with a new camera vs. a potentially problematic old camera is fantastic - whether or not the camera itself is fantastic.'

I didn’t say it was fantastic. I’m not sure why the semantics matter either

The OP said it, and I asked the OP why he said it. His answer was essentially the same as yours: because it's new.

I would prefer it in normal format with manual A aperture.

I'm sure the next one will use the familiar horizontal 135 format.

As a thought experiment, what if it isn’t? What if it’s the first of a line of half frame cameras? People love the PENs and they still sell well on eBay. With modern films (Vision3, Portra) and good scanning, half frame may well be enough for most people.

If that's how it goes, then I guess the OP will be disappointed.

I think it would disappoint a lot of people on these forums, but it’s based on the mantra that technical image quality is all that matters, when it’s often the thing that matters least

What do you think? It is believed that the half frame is here to stay?

In addition to other formats, yes.

 

[Overrank]

I'm looking at the flickr photos from the new pentax 17. Although I'd call them sharp, there's something I don't like about the half frame. I don't know it could be the lens which is close to 40 38mm if I'm not mistaken.

It's a 'small sensor' camera, with the inherent consequences. I haven't seen any tests of the lens itself, but it seems okay for a three element lens.

The quality of the photos is not great, but the concept of the camera is fantastic.

Which concepts are fantastic?

The concept of producing the first small film camera after almost 20 years of digital cameras. It's very brave and the design of project 17 is fabulous.

I think the Pentax 17 is a breath of fresh air and hope it’s very successful and the first of many . All the things that the camera has been bashed for, both on here and elsewhere: lack of resolution, graininess, “verticalness” of the camera (as if you can’t rotate it), lack of “proper” controls, are (IMO) based on a misunderstanding of how it will be used by the target audience.

I didn't say it's bad for the target audience. I just asked what makes it fantastic.

It’s new, you get a warranty, you can have it serviced and fixed by Pentax. Most importantly there’s a high likelihood that it will work and so won’t disappoint new film users.

There are many people who come to this forum having bought some old camera off eBay only to find out the meter doesn’t work, or the shutter is capping, or that it simply doesn’t work at all. By the time they find this out they’re two rolls of film, development and scanning in and really don’t want to spend more money on a CLA

If that's the case, the correct statement is 'Having the benefits associated with a new camera vs. a potentially problematic old camera is fantastic - whether or not the camera itself is fantastic.'

I didn’t say it was fantastic. I’m not sure why the semantics matter either

The OP said it, and I asked the OP why he said it. His answer was essentially the same as yours: because it's new.

You also asked me why it was fantastic. But anyway, “newness” is not something to be sniffed at. With the exception of various Lomography and a few specialist model, this is probably the first 35mm camera available new in the last 20 years that wasn’t using an old design. So Pentax have built in things for new film photographers (a simple and modal exposure system) rather than just aping the old ways. The inclusion of a powered manual focus is also very clever as it allows for a simple automatic setting, which sets the lens to its hyperfocal distance as well as automating the exposure. A traditional manual lens couldn’t have done that.

 

[ishwanu]

I'm looking at the flickr photos from the new pentax 17. Although I'd call them sharp, there's something I don't like about the half frame. I don't know it could be the lens which is close to 40 38mm if I'm not mistaken.

It's a 'small sensor' camera, with the inherent consequences. I haven't seen any tests of the lens itself, but it seems okay for a three element lens.

The quality of the photos is not great, but the concept of the camera is fantastic.

Which concepts are fantastic?

The concept of producing the first small film camera after almost 20 years of digital cameras. It's very brave and the design of project 17 is fabulous.

I think the Pentax 17 is a breath of fresh air and hope it’s very successful and the first of many . All the things that the camera has been bashed for, both on here and elsewhere: lack of resolution, graininess, “verticalness” of the camera (as if you can’t rotate it), lack of “proper” controls, are (IMO) based on a misunderstanding of how it will be used by the target audience.

I didn't say it's bad for the target audience. I just asked what makes it fantastic.

It’s new, you get a warranty, you can have it serviced and fixed by Pentax. Most importantly there’s a high likelihood that it will work and so won’t disappoint new film users.

There are many people who come to this forum having bought some old camera off eBay only to find out the meter doesn’t work, or the shutter is capping, or that it simply doesn’t work at all. By the time they find this out they’re two rolls of film, development and scanning in and really don’t want to spend more money on a CLA

If that's the case, the correct statement is 'Having the benefits associated with a new camera vs. a potentially problematic old camera is fantastic - whether or not the camera itself is fantastic.'

I didn’t say it was fantastic. I’m not sure why the semantics matter either

The OP said it, and I asked the OP why he said it. His answer was essentially the same as yours: because it's new.

You also asked me why it was fantastic.

Look again. I never asked you that. You just jumped in with answers and comments anyway.

 

[Overrank]

I'm looking at the flickr photos from the new pentax 17. Although I'd call them sharp, there's something I don't like about the half frame. I don't know it could be the lens which is close to 40 38mm if I'm not mistaken.

It's a 'small sensor' camera, with the inherent consequences. I haven't seen any tests of the lens itself, but it seems okay for a three element lens.

The quality of the photos is not great, but the concept of the camera is fantastic.

Which concepts are fantastic?

The concept of producing the first small film camera after almost 20 years of digital cameras. It's very brave and the design of project 17 is fabulous.

I think the Pentax 17 is a breath of fresh air and hope it’s very successful and the first of many . All the things that the camera has been bashed for, both on here and elsewhere: lack of resolution, graininess, “verticalness” of the camera (as if you can’t rotate it), lack of “proper” controls, are (IMO) based on a misunderstanding of how it will be used by the target audience.

I didn't say it's bad for the target audience. I just asked what makes it fantastic.

It’s new, you get a warranty, you can have it serviced and fixed by Pentax. Most importantly there’s a high likelihood that it will work and so won’t disappoint new film users.

There are many people who come to this forum having bought some old camera off eBay only to find out the meter doesn’t work, or the shutter is capping, or that it simply doesn’t work at all. By the time they find this out they’re two rolls of film, development and scanning in and really don’t want to spend more money on a CLA

If that's the case, the correct statement is 'Having the benefits associated with a new camera vs. a potentially problematic old camera is fantastic - whether or not the camera itself is fantastic.'

I didn’t say it was fantastic. I’m not sure why the semantics matter either

The OP said it, and I asked the OP why he said it. His answer was essentially the same as yours: because it's new.

You also asked me why it was fantastic.

Look again. I never asked you that. You just jumped in with answers and comments anyway.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67797367

(becomes more like “Open Talk” every day )

 

[ishwanu]

I'm looking at the flickr photos from the new pentax 17. Although I'd call them sharp, there's something I don't like about the half frame. I don't know it could be the lens which is close to 40 38mm if I'm not mistaken.

It's a 'small sensor' camera, with the inherent consequences. I haven't seen any tests of the lens itself, but it seems okay for a three element lens.

The quality of the photos is not great, but the concept of the camera is fantastic.

Which concepts are fantastic?

The concept of producing the first small film camera after almost 20 years of digital cameras. It's very brave and the design of project 17 is fabulous.

I think the Pentax 17 is a breath of fresh air and hope it’s very successful and the first of many . All the things that the camera has been bashed for, both on here and elsewhere: lack of resolution, graininess, “verticalness” of the camera (as if you can’t rotate it), lack of “proper” controls, are (IMO) based on a misunderstanding of how it will be used by the target audience.

I didn't say it's bad for the target audience. I just asked what makes it fantastic.

It’s new, you get a warranty, you can have it serviced and fixed by Pentax. Most importantly there’s a high likelihood that it will work and so won’t disappoint new film users.

There are many people who come to this forum having bought some old camera off eBay only to find out the meter doesn’t work, or the shutter is capping, or that it simply doesn’t work at all. By the time they find this out they’re two rolls of film, development and scanning in and really don’t want to spend more money on a CLA

If that's the case, the correct statement is 'Having the benefits associated with a new camera vs. a potentially problematic old camera is fantastic - whether or not the camera itself is fantastic.'

I didn’t say it was fantastic. I’m not sure why the semantics matter either

The OP said it, and I asked the OP why he said it. His answer was essentially the same as yours: because it's new.

You also asked me why it was fantastic.

Look again. I never asked you that. You just jumped in with answers and comments anyway.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67797367

(becomes more like “Open Talk” every day )

Great. All you did was re-display the proof that I didn't ask you. I just reminded you of what I asked the OP. I did not ask you anything at all.

 

[Overrank]

I'm looking at the flickr photos from the new pentax 17. Although I'd call them sharp, there's something I don't like about the half frame. I don't know it could be the lens which is close to 40 38mm if I'm not mistaken.

It's a 'small sensor' camera, with the inherent consequences. I haven't seen any tests of the lens itself, but it seems okay for a three element lens.

The quality of the photos is not great, but the concept of the camera is fantastic.

Which concepts are fantastic?

The concept of producing the first small film camera after almost 20 years of digital cameras. It's very brave and the design of project 17 is fabulous.

I think the Pentax 17 is a breath of fresh air and hope it’s very successful and the first of many . All the things that the camera has been bashed for, both on here and elsewhere: lack of resolution, graininess, “verticalness” of the camera (as if you can’t rotate it), lack of “proper” controls, are (IMO) based on a misunderstanding of how it will be used by the target audience.

I didn't say it's bad for the target audience. I just asked what makes it fantastic.

It’s new, you get a warranty, you can have it serviced and fixed by Pentax. Most importantly there’s a high likelihood that it will work and so won’t disappoint new film users.

There are many people who come to this forum having bought some old camera off eBay only to find out the meter doesn’t work, or the shutter is capping, or that it simply doesn’t work at all. By the time they find this out they’re two rolls of film, development and scanning in and really don’t want to spend more money on a CLA

If that's the case, the correct statement is 'Having the benefits associated with a new camera vs. a potentially problematic old camera is fantastic - whether or not the camera itself is fantastic.'

I didn’t say it was fantastic. I’m not sure why the semantics matter either

The OP said it, and I asked the OP why he said it. His answer was essentially the same as yours: because it's new.

You also asked me why it was fantastic.

Look again. I never asked you that. You just jumped in with answers and comments anyway.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/67797367

(becomes more like “Open Talk” every day )

Great. All you did was re-display the proof that I didn't ask you. I just reminded you of what I asked the OP. I did not ask you anything at all.

As I said, more like Open Talk every day…