I am certainly not advocating that you continue to use gear you don’t like, but this quote strikes me. Contrast and color are entirely in an electronic space once scanned and can be tweaked in any direction. Seriously, I would look at your processing, post-processing scheme.
I only wet print, and I see no difference between my Olympus and Pentax lenses of the same era- I suspect any significant differences between the better Japanese brands of the period would be hard to find. There was a guy I worked with who was kinda exited to show me some severe chromatic aberration he thought he found from his new, expensive, Sigma lens on his digi camera. I thought it unlikely- this is top grade stuff, not a box camera from the 1930’s- I suggested it was a digital artifact, which it was. Just my 2 cents, YMMV.
A great point, and I'm still coming to grips with my workflow (lab developed, shot on the Sony, then using Negative Lab Pro). I guess I should say it took more effort than other lenses to get the results I was looking for, but that's not to say any other double gauss 50 of the same era isn't going to look roughly the same.
So you didn't even bother to actually test the camera. You looked at some scans of unknown quality and decided whatever you didn't like was the camera's fault. The only way to test a camera is with an E-6 film. If you haven't done that, you haven't done anything.
So you didn't even bother to actually test the camera. You looked at some scans of unknown quality and decided whatever you didn't like was the camera's fault. The only way to test a camera is with an E-6 film. If you haven't done that, you haven't done anything.
I scanned several rolls of different color negative stock, most I'm familiar with, but I will try that next. I shot some Velvia 50 for the first time the other day and am convinced it's the only film for me