That is often what I hear that the contrast of the older lenses just doesn't match newer lenses. You find extra detail with the modern lenses too?

I often find myself preferring older lenses, particularly K series, over modern lenses. I don't know exactly why, I just gravitate towards them.

I'm not a fan of lens test charts or performance metrics, I'm only interested in the results I can achieve in the field. I've never really compared them side by side with the same subject, so the other day when I found myself down by the river and happened to have old K and new Ltd in the bag I thought I'd try the same scene with them both.

Here are the results. It's not at all a scientific approach as the modern lens is a fair bit wider than the old, so it's not a like for like comparison or particularly meaningful. Nevertheless I found it interesting and I thought the old lens held up alright. Click through for nice detail:

To be honest places like the Masai Mara and Ngorongoro sometimes feel like a big zoo anyway. A couple of cheetahs completely habituated to the presence of humans and surrounded at close quarters by twenty safari vehicles doesn't feel that wild. So the boundaries aren't black and white anyway. For me the distinction comes through with the look and feel of the image not through any set of rules.

We scan much more horizontally than vertically which is why I think a more widescreen ratio gives a more natural feel to landscape. 16:9 just feels very comfortable, close to the golden rectangle too. In producing a natural looking image I think it is entirely relevant, as is the effect of the weather on the camera's ability to interpret the scene in a way we might consider natural.

I have no doubt that it is true. Graphene is a material defined by superlatives and it will revolutionise the technology of pretty much everything. After years of trying to isolate graphene some scientists finally achieved it with cutting edge, state of the art technology of a pencil and a roll of sellotape. In fact my daughter at the age of three achieved the same feat as those scientists but never received the Nobel prize as she neglected to publish her discovery.

Rumours are though that commercial applications will take almost as long as the Pentax full frame.

And the higher the contrast the more pronounced the difference between the two imaging systems hence the less natural the results imo.

I agree that a widescreen aspect gives a more natural result, although I think he above image is too letterbox for that aim, plus the scene looks very distorted.

And I think the image closest to that brief is Smudge's, which was taken on a dull day.

The other images fall far shorter imo.

I don't find any of these shots particularly natural. I think my eyes would naturally interpret these scenes rather differently. For example, in the first image I would not expect to see the shadow cast by the hedge to look anywhere near that dark, likewise the black shadow in the background trees. The brightest areas in the above shot I think are much brighter than how my imaging machinery works and the shadows deeper.

So personally, contrast is the most important factor and I think the best way to produce an image of a scene that is most faithful to human light processing is by choosing a scene that is naturally much lower in contrast than any of the above images. A dull grey sky I think gives more realistitic results. I think the choice of focal length, depth of field and aspect ratio has a part to play as well, not just brightness and colour.

If I post an image here then you cannot possibly know how bright the original scene was and therefore how it 'should' look. How could you tell?

How do you know that the light gathering and processing capabilities of everyone's retina and brain is the same. An example, my kids often squint away in light that I don't, so I guess they perceive the scene brighter than I do.

Colour vision certainly varies. For instance, I simply cannot tell the brown and red ball in snooker apart. So I see colour differently from you.

So does contrast. Your eye wouldn't see those shadows so dark, nowhere near.

For those that wish to document a scene faithfully there is one approach for those that wish to apply artistic licence there is another. I don't see why one approach can be considered correct.

Brightness and colour are not absolute concepts for me, it all depends how they are measured and there is no standard natural instrument for that.

Surely what looks natural depends upon the available light at the time. There's no right or wrong.