[AlanS]

I suppose that, as with film, it's a remarkable thing if the digital technology can duplicate the complete range of colours accurately to match human perception.

But it is annoying when the photographs are clearly wrong.

My Nikon D100, excellent camera though it is, most of the time, cannot handle rich red-purples.
Bloody Cranesbill, as the name suggests (it not being a judgemental comment on cranesbills), has rich, red-purple flowers, NOT anaemic lilac. Same thing happens with knapweeds. Also, plants with purplish blue flowers come out pure blue.

Recently I have started using an Olympus SP-560UZ, mainly for lichen close-ups, and it can give brilliant results, within the limits of the guy holding the camera. I have not yet tested it on knapweeds and cranesbills, but what I AM finding is that it has a weakness in the pale ochre-yellow or green-yellow area. Lichens with these colours come out grey.
Lecanora sulphurea, as the name suggests, is one such lichen, the greenish-yellow colour being a distinctive feature when it grows in large patches on old walls. I now have a series of excellent photographs of it - except that the characteristic colour is hardly apparent - it is just greyish white. I note that colour photo of the same species in 'Dobson' (the standard field handbook to lichens) has exactly the same problem, though this will have been with an older camera or may have been a digital conversion from film.

To get to the point of this post:

a) are these problems simply still a general feature of digital photography, or do they vary from make to make?

b) assuming there ARE differences between makes/models, are there any websites that have tabulated comparisons?

c) any tips to overcome the problem? [With lichens, light shading can give better colour rendition - full sunlight usually gives horrible pics anyway]

Alan