I've always been intrigued by the Foveon cameras, but never managed to convince myself to tolerate the trade-offs. Nearly convinced myself to try a DP2m a couple of times, but just never took the plunge, and figured if the technology truly had merit, eventually Sigma or someone else would develop it into something more usable.
While perhaps my previous post made me come off as someone who loves doing work in post, if anything I am the opposite. It's my least favorite part of digital photography, but a necessary evil to get the results I want. Anything I can do upfront in the shooting process to make post work less demanding appeals to me (hence capturing optimal data), but as far as I can tell, there's still no algorithm that can predict the look I want consistently and bake it into a JPEG for me. The closest I can do is a few sets of my own Adobe presets, but even those are dependent on correct exposure to work as intended and are far from universal.
I do take plenty of more spontaneous / less pre-visualized photos, but generally working from the same approach of data-gathering that informs my aperture/SS/ISO/focus point decisions, and is familiar and well-trained enough to often not require much more than a reaction rather than involved thought. That is to say, I can spend more effort thinking about what goes in the frame and where, rather than how to execute the shot itself. And It's that puzzle of what goes where, how, and why, that ultimately I think I find most rewarding and enjoyable about photography.
I don't see the alarm with finding charm and enjoyment in older gear either, and I can certainly see the appeal of various traits of various lenses and bodies that have been around over the years. I personally prefer to have a fairly small footprint of "stuff" in my life, so am naturally drawn to things that are closer to do-it-all, than extremely characterful specialists. In photography, much like in audio, this has generally tended to draw me to devices at the leading edge of technical development, often derided as dull, cold, soul-less, or the like by certain other enthusiasts.
Put me in a target-rich environment, and I do believe I'd enjoy shooting it with any camera. But I'd enjoy it more shooting one with fewer caveats, limitations, and work-arounds required to get the results I want. I'd probably enjoy the results I got from those cameras, (perhaps even enjoy some of their results MORE, depending on the circumstances?), but I think I would enjoy the journey to those results less. And I've come to discover that I enjoy the journey of photography as much as or perhaps more than the result.
I just spent 4 days in the backcountry of Kings Canyon NP. I brought one camera that I know very well, and two lenses, and had a glorious time searching through scenes to find compositions I liked, and capturing them fairly effortlessly with files that I knew would stand up well and turn out great, due to the incredible and consistent performance of that gear. I didn't have to worry about running out of dynamic range, having inconsistent acuity across the frame, name your photographic malady, basically. I just had to concern myself with getting my camera to the right place at the right time with the optimal settings, and know that the results wouldn't disappoint me. And at first look, they haven't. I've scarcely ever had more fun with a camera. But I understand someone could say exactly the same thing about doing nighttime urban photography with a Holga, and it would be completely true for them as well.