Jeffc: Tech Pan film was great but there were 2 films even finer grain. Kodak High Contrast Copy HCC was one. Using this type film for normal photography with a special developer originally started with a private individual (not Kodak) who I met. I could get 240 lines/mm on the standard resolution chart with my best lens the Leica Summicron F2 (their binoculars were always better too) but only 200 lines/mm with Tech Pan. With Pan X all the best lenses topped out at 100 lines/mm (it was not fine grain enough for lens testing). Film resolution has been the biggest detriment to resolution all these years--not the lenses. Then Kodak tried to play catch up & has to lower everything to their standards for the public with Tech Pan. I didn't have to carry a 4x5 or a 8x10 anymore to make big enlargements with HCC but Tech Pan was better than Pan X.
But the finest grain film of all was Spectrographic 649 that Kodak said would resolve 1000 (?) lines/mm & I had 50' of it 40 years ago. I got 400 lines/mm with that film. I made magnificent enlargements with it & no grain in really big ones with the original developer used on HCC. I won bets with it claiming it was shot in a 35MM camera but had to show the negs. You could barely see grain in a microscope. The ASA or ISO was about .05 to 1 & for simplicity I took a light meter reading at ISO 25 & multiplied the exposure time by 10--not exactly hand held.
Kodak had a special film in jets they claimed they could take a license plate over a car from some number of miles (?) over it. If so the plane would have to be at around 45 degrees in front 30% further (maybe a helicopter to reduce movement) or have some magic right angle prisms in the film to read the plates & a vary fast ISO when flying at jet speed over the car! I tried to get some but never could. They asked me how high I wanted to take pictures & I said 5' 3". He didn't understand me & I had to explain. He told me I was the only one who ever wanted it for normal photography.
That last smaller negative camera they came out with followed their lowering everything to their standards approach to the public. If you held the prints out at arms length they were just tolerable but you never kept them.
As was suggested to make some pictures with it. But make a shot with the 850 and the same shot with a previous lens you updated with, enlarge to 10 or 20X and compare them here.. Snap shot comparisons don't reveal anything.
Was the F stop used F-22 or was it's max setting? Every lens tests show reduced resolution closed above the sweet F stop what ever it is. I saw no need for F22 even at 2'.
I don't see how the camera used made any difference.
I climbed a 200' radio tower to get a picture of another radio tower with a ham radio antenna on it at 150'. I think that was a first. The picture appeared on the front cover of CQ mag. W0LMB ken glanzer
It was refreshing to see every picture as properly exposed. Many who display B&W pictures (& others) as show pieces are often over exposed(1-2 F stops). Why show them?
What are Flickr users? Who is it? I've never seen the term before.
rehess: 1/250 is certainly fast enough for a moving train which is at some distance close to the infinity setting on the lens. But if you move closer & closer to the moving train (not a convenient test) there will be movement on the picture that will start to show even at 1/250. Obviously the closer you are to a moving object the higher the shutter or flash speed needed. There is a distance where even the 1/1000 +/- speed of a fixed strobe will freeze it (up to a point). With the strobe the shutter speed is limited to 1/250 but not a factor with a strobe with ample flash reserve. This critical closer point where 1/250 (no strobe) starts to fail can be seen if you shoot a variable speed fan at difference distances at 1/250 with & without a strobe & blow it up in the computer 20X & camera movement will start to show. Do it with a Strobe also. If shooting with film, the higher the resolution of the film, it will start to show it sooner also.
Many years ago I read where a test was made to determine just how fast a strobe his was (or can be with TTL). He took a shot of a cars rotating wheel going past him at some speed & supposedly froze it (probably had to do it several times--timing very critical). The rotating wheel would be fairly close to the camera on a moving car going the other way. I'd expect the TTL action of a strobe would shorten the flash duration considerably & freeze even a rotating wheel going the other way (simpler than a moving train--rotating fan is even simpler for comparisons). I always wanted to try this moving test but never did. The quickness of TTL action to limit a strobe speed accurately for the distance is a very impressive electronic action for speed of flash control level that impresses me very much.
You can test the "Comparative Resolutions" of similar lenses at different F-Stops by shooting a newspaper at different distances at night with a flash on a tripod for convenience. The closer it is to the camera, the quicker the TTL flash but shouldn't be a factor at night. Many years ago I ran tests where I moved the camera at different horizontal sweep rates to see where the flash wasn't fast enough to freeze the variable size newspaper print. There was a sweep rate & distance where it started to show. A variable speed fan (really slow) with a tachometer (to record the fan speed) is very convenient. I may do this test over.
To fully illuminate the bottom of my ham radio antenna round elements (always in a high sun shadow during the day), I did a flash shot at night. I could see detail, nuts & bolts on the tower very clearly 55' away not that clear during the day. Daylight lens flare may have been a factor also.
What is Eastman 5222 film, it's characteristics. What is it supposed to do that tri-x & the rest do? What is D96H developer. How does it differ from D-76 etc. Id like to see shots taken in sunlight. ken
It's a good idea to save the pictures on a thumb nail also as if something goes wrong with the computer you can loose all your pictures. I had this happen.
I used 2 film backs of the same firm with the Hasselblad for B&W. If the sun was out I developed normally or so it printed properly on F2 paper. If overcast I overdeveloped it some so to increase the contrast so it also printed properly on F2 paper. I also used flash from time to time on overcast days for the closer subjects to make it look closer to a sun lit day. It tended to fill in the shadows some also like under the bill of a hat.
I'm looking for ways to make an overcast day look more like a sunlit day in digital. Anyone have ways that would help they have been using?
Markngolf: I was surprised at the joke here but there is a lot of revealing truth in the message which is more important. Many very attractive men & women (actors too) blessed by their parents let them self get fat or their attitudes gets bad,on drugs or starts drinking & it sours anyone in all areas of relationships. It was a brilliant doctor & joke that should be posted where both would read it. The skin creams for wrinkles are really great, not a fix all but there is NO skin cream for fat, demanding men or women with bad attitudes. Women need to realize their emotional needs require them to remain attractive for many years, they need to constantly preserve it the best they can, not let it slip away or both will look elsewhere & a major reason for it I've seen many times. It even helps to compensate for attitudes a bit on the negative side & normal wrinkles even for men. If he had been fed better, (prolonged ED diet-that could really catch on) not smoked on & on he might not have the problem for awhile longer. I'd like to see more of these brilliant jokes posted everywhere. Relationship wisdom's always need regular postings like "Don't marry a women 10 or more years younger." Have prior financial agreements or secret accounts. If you can't get it up she may go elsewhere with most of your savings. You may need it around retirement age. (Old Hedgehog Axiom)
That's a great photo & colors. But if shot at 1/125 it's too slow if not on a tripod. F-16 is not the sharpest F-Stop by a couple. I would have also taken a shot with 1 stop more light. I would like to get a N850 as soon as I can. But any small shot for comparison purposes without a comparative shot by a lessor camera & lens & both blown up to 20X doesn't really show anything. I'd like some reliable reference to see if I gained anything.
I'd like to start the practice here of comparison shots blow up 20x with a very fast shutter speed or a slower one on a tripod set off for the shutter delay & a low ISO. Also use the best F-Stop usually around 2 stops closed. Focus at the 1/3 point as depth of field usually focused 2/3rds forward & 1/3 to the rear for balance. I've found these practices really show you want you want to know before you spend your money on others recommendations--since 1936 when I started. I've never been challenged on this procedure. If anyone has a comment please do so.
There has been a post on acceptable lenses for the N850 by Nikon. As I remember they were all new Nikon lenses??? When you compare several lenses on the same camera & scene properly done you will get some surprises.
What was the lens, ISO used & distance of the 2nd & last shot. I'd like to get one of those lenses.
Wouls a flash fill improved the last picture on the bottom side? Partially shaded areas always lack detail!
Pregasus: My info over the years the rate of rising is increasing some. Where were you informed it's constant?