I had one of these great cameras that was stolen. It also had the very convenient Collapsible Sumacron F2 50mm lens which had the highest resolution of all lenses I tested on very fine grain film (high contrast copy) at F4 of any lens I ever tested (designed with a Slide Rule). I even used it in my enlarger. If I enlarged the full flame I had to use F5.6 or 8 for edge of picture sharpness. At F4 it was a very fast enlarging lens resulting in short exposure times. A modern Nikon Macro computer designed lens was close in resolution.

The pleasing contrast of these shots & the great blacks was due to the larger amounts of Silver Contact & Enlarging Paper had in those days & back in the 1800's. At one time Kodak had a huge amount of Silver inventory. When Poly Contrast Enlarging Paper came out, it was faster (dimmer safe light needed to prevent paper exposure) to reduce enlarger exposure times (negative buckling), the use of multiple Poly Contrast Filters & One Contrast Paper (rather than stocking multiple grades of paper). It worked but there was less silver in it & the Contact Print Paper Look of better blacks was absent never to return. I can spot a contact paper print immediately. These pictures were illuminated with a multiple bright flood light I believe. Even a slow flash bulb would have stopped the propellers somewhat. Does anyone know the approximate speed of a flash bulb then compared to a modern strobe?

I was glad to see the A Adams picture of him on a platform on his SUV I referenced previously. I made a similar one on my Saab Small Wagon & used it frequently. I don't see why he used it here. I see no need for a long cable release he supposedly used someone mentioned on the ground to prevent any jitter. His camera was heavy, on a strong tripod & it wasn't a telephoto. 8x10 negs were frequently contact prints also. I knew a few who had 8x10 enlargers. It was also possible to make one out of the camera. Some one (It might have been Adams) had a light source from the sun through a hole in the roof & movable mirror somehow. It was bright, very even & not hot for a quick exposure & no negative warping if not supported on glass. Even 35mm negs can warp in an enlarger if the exposure is too long. Even Leitz in their enlarger had a glass plate in the neg holder & one without. Flood Lee the brilliant color guy in Seattle had very advanced enlargers also. He had a mechanical engineering degree from the U of W also & built a lot of ingenious devices I've seen to aid his photography. He was a joy to know technically & shared his knowledge.
I've never seen info on what shutter speed the cell phone cameras use. Does anyone have info on that? I always use fast shutter speeds when hand holding. With my D2X & strobe shots the shutter speed is limited to 1/250 but if the majority of light is from the strobe that works OK--it's sharp. A guy told me that he took a picture of a passing car wheel with a strobe & it was sharp. I've always wanted to try that. If true the strobe is very very quick. I've stopped spinning drills with a strobe. Does anyone have the actual speeds or time periods of a strobe which would vary depending on the level of exposure needed. I often see airplane propellers stopped during the day just with fast shutter speeds.

A platform doesn't have to be on a SUV--it's more convenient. There were rain gutters you could hook onto to hold the platform down while driving. They don't have them now. It was a small air drag while driving. A 1" plywood platform can be on a regular car with the proper rubber cup pads like I had. But you need a way to hold it on there. A long cable release wouldn't necessary when on a tripod on top of the car as he wasn't taking telephotos & his cameras were relatively heavy. That would have been a real nuisance having to climb up & down from the car for every shot. I didn't need a ladder as I was able to get on the hood easy from the bumper and climb on top of the roof.

Build a platform on top of a station wagon like Ansel Adams did. Look in his books. I did also & it solves the problem.

I zoomed the size of the image on my monitor to examine the picture sharpness better. The white hairs were fair. There seems to be limited depth of field & too slow a shutter speed. For some reason this picture didn't tickle my sharpness pixels in my eye where really sharp pictures have I've seen really did. Why didn't you use the 4K for viewing? To evaluate any picture the best monitor resolution is always needed. Every step of a picture making process has to be at maximum with film in particular. One step that is not maximized reducing resolution will not be corrected by the following steps no matter how good they are. They just reproduce to the best of their ability what they are fed & never improve it.
Fortunately Digital Photography has fewer steps than film pictures & is much quicker to see the results & correct the exposure if necessary. Maximum sharpness can be easily evaluated in the computer later but always make sure the proper exposure was used. On overcast days I use a flash to improve the contrast & sharpness of objects within its range (shutter speed automatically sets at 1/250). Always shoot at 1/500 with normal lenses (unless a mono or tripod is used) when hand held & "Squeeze the Trigger'' slowly as they say in guns. Always maximize the precision of every step. There are no effective compromises ever in photography--it is not forgiving.
35mm photography was always a Resolution Disaster starting off with small negs, often fast film like salt & pepper grain Tri-X for faster film speed often using an F stop on the camera that wasn't optimum like F16, improper development affecting contrast, enlarger lens not at maximum precise focus & at its best F-Stop, wiggly enlarger table & support post on & on (I beefed everything up mechanically). In my Leica Focal Mat Enlarger I also used my Leica camera 50mm Collapsible Summacron lens (designed with a slide rule many year ago & lots of Lens Insight) as it had the highest resolution of all 35mm camera lenses I tested at F4 (on much finer grain film that Pan-X in order to see it--Kodak Hi-Contrast Copy film--also used Spectro-Graphic 649 that resolved 1000 lines/mm). Enlarger exposures where quicker at F4 also reducing negative heating & defocusing, enlarger wiggle (it was a F2 lens)(the Non Colapsible 50mm Summacron was not quite as sharp for some reason). The Leica Enlarger had a Constant Focus set up for different enlargements but I never used it. Enlarger lenses need to be flatter in focus (the enlargement is flat 2D--not 3D) where camera lens weren't as flat not ideal for enlarging. It wasn't as sharp on the edges of the enlargement at F4 as in the center at but that was often the area of most importance & the negative was often cropped. If I used F8 the edges were sharper than at F4 but the center wasn't as sharp I could actually see with small print. Note! The Nikon 50mm Macro was close in resolution but designed with a computer many years later.
Ha$$elblad negs were always an improvement over 35mm for starters & easier to clean & handle. I started with 4x5, 8x10 negs & CONTACT PRINTS (perfect contact & no wiggle reproduction). Contact paper had a better contrast range one could see as it had more silver in it. You could see some detail in the darker areas. I can spot a Contact Print every time. Poly Contrast Enlarging Paper had to be faster due to weaker enlarger images & never ever equaled the over all quality of Contact Paper.
I have maximized many 35mm shots making it just barely worth the effort, it was a Precision Hassle start to finish just for the convenience of a smaller camera initially but bigger Ha$$elblad negs were always better. I had 6 removable film backs to separate sun light & over cast B&W pictures to use the proper developing times for each. Lugging a 4x5 around in the early days was a hassle but we didn't know any better way to go. The negs were a joy to easily use & evaluate. I still have 3 great 4x5's & a Linhoff 8x10 & use them occasionally just for old times sake. You need to experience the feeling to appreciate it.
For a better picture taking height (often too close to the ground) I made a Roof Platform on top of my car like A.Adams had that improved many pictures. I could use it very quickly using a small ladder to get on top of it. Of course to get the proper contrast ratio & proper detail in the Hi's & Lo's on every shot even if properly exposed, the negs had to be separated into sun light or overcast developing times batches per A.Adams very effective Zone System of Development. The Contrast Goal Kodak always recommended was the neg printed best on F2 Paper which it often did using the Zone System & proper development. Kodak didn't tell you how to get the perfect neg virtually every time as Adams did. They never could explain how to do it. I seldom needed to use F3 or F1 paper thanks to Adams. As effective as it was & precise as light meter measurements could be made, it was a average of all contrasts it sees based on the Gray scale for balance unless a spot meter was used. He even bracketed his shots I saw in Ha$$elblad negatives hanging up in his dark room. I almost asked him why he bracketed. I often did also (never got a bad neg that way & never had to retake another shot which was often not possible & it saved a lot of time & $$$). Regardless how advanced the camera is like the N850 there are still guide lines that have to be rigidly followed to assure you get everything the new camera recorded after the shot was made.

I hope that when you start to use a tripod {or 3-4x your shutter speed when a tripod is not available}, you make a series of identical pictures at a normal shutter speed with & without a tripod & make at least 25X blow ups in the computer which is easy & convenient to do. Better yet shoot the same picture with your older camera also for a true side by side comparison. This snap shot showing of N850 pictures practice does not show the full improvements a camera or lens potentially has. It will confirm your observations. But using faster shutter speeds requires you to use faster film speed or equivalent which shows less detail. That was a problem with film. The greater the resolution of the lens or the more pixels or both the more it shows up camera movement or too slow a shutter speed no matter how slight it is, the more telephoto also & can't ignore.
When I was doing resolution tests with High Contrast Copy film 40 years ago (Kodaks 2nd highest fine grain film) & the developer that makes it act almost normal. I would even lay a sand bag on the camera to increase its stability on the tripod in particular with telephoto lenses. I'd use automatic delay on the shutter so my finger didn't even touch the camera when the shutter went off. I'm in the market for an N850 also but would never ever spend that money based on "snap shots" someone showed. I need blow ups of what it does compared to a camera with less pixels to part with my money.
Many 4x5 pictures & enlargements printed years ago were very sharp mostly because a tripod or flash was use. They showed all kinds of detail on ones face--pimples or even pores. Or he used a 1/250 shutter or faster. I often used Tri-x 4x5 film with 1/500 shutter & got great prints & enlargements.
Another point many were not aware of when using a 4x5 was one often then changed to F16 (after carefully focusing at F4.5), there was often some focus shift beyond the point of focus. You didn't see it on the ground glass as the illumination was too dim to see any focus detail with the dim wider depth of field of F16. It could been seen on comparative pictures if one reversed focused a certain amount when using F16. I seldom ever used F16 but a max of F11 & got great pictures others marveled at. Some 4x5 lenses back-focused a bit on F16. Some 8X10 lenses did this also. I showed this to many years ago. Many of the 8x10 contact prints (no enlarging or focus errors) of the 1800's were very sharp & detailed as they were shot on a tripod & often used a crude flash. The 8x10 pictures I shot with my Linhoff 8X10 that I still have were fantastic. When the 35mm got started it was for convenience only. It was a huge step backwards. The Hasselblad was a great compromise & I still have 2 of them. Neither ever had a mechanical problem ever & no other camera can say that.
You have to run side by side comparisons of blow ups with the new & older camera or you will not be able to truly evaluate the merits of another camera. I seldom use less than 1/500 also & don't have camera shake problems I can see. Why that has been so evasive to the photographers yet so obvious when done is a mystery here.

I'm still waiting to see a side by side comparison of the 850 & their previous camera with a 25X blow up. Snaps shot are not informative!

Why is the mirror less so heavy & so much larger? The chip size doesn't seem to justify it. I used a rented Nikon 5500 (it was lighter & smaller but that's it) & it was the most frustrating experience i ever had being menu driven. I couldn't use auto focusing without the special lenses required for the 5500. I had to manual focus every picture. I've never seen that mentioned? What are quick & simple adjustments on A DSLR often needed (such as shutter, aperture or asa), take a couple time consuming steps you have to learn (it takes longer for a senior despite being in photography since 1936) in my opinion & is a total design disaster unnecessarily with proper design. The camera needs a very detailed step by step video on how to use it to overcome ones total disrespect of the new design & many new things to remember at a split second. Show example of contrast changes etc & why you need the flexibility. One could review all those new steps at any time (often needed) & not have to call camera people & bother them for instructions on steps you just can't remember when not use repetitively. One of the major advantages of all digital cameras is allowing faster shutter speeds eliminating the tripod. For snap shots one would seldom see any difference in the quality of the picture between pictures but you would in any enlargements..

I should like to point out that in order to be happy with anything you have to be able to see an improvement in like size enlargements from the old & the new camera to justify the additional investment.

That enlargement is not enough to show anything & compare it to other cameras on the same shots at least 25X.

Since you have a 105 Macro lens (I have one also) you have an even better opportunity to show the resolution possible with the 850 which should be noticeably better--but how much? Shoot the same pictures with a high shutter speed or use a tripod with another Nikon & compare 25X or more sections of the same photos & share with us here. Snap shots won't show it. My Hassleblad snap shots weren't any better than 35mm snapshots! It really showed up on the enlargements. The BIGGER the enlargement the more so! Can you instantly change the shutter, aperture & asa speed without having to look at the camera * make more than one adjustment or is it a royal pain in the time delay ass as on the N5500. That is the worst camera design I've ever seen & used in my 88 years. I wouldn't take one if Nikon gave me one. Those only Digital camera designers should be deported to the Moon or Mars. In many ways they set back camera design more than any other feature.

Snapshots are too small to determine anything about the higher resolution.. If you have another Nikon camera, take the same shots at a high shutter speed or use a tripod. Then compare 25X of the same sections of the prints & display them here. I & others would like to see what the higher resolution, if & how much. Snap shots don't tell you anyrhing except color.

I still want to see a 25X comparison of the 850 & the same picture from a lessor resolution. Snap shots won't show it--enlargements will. Show me there is a reason to buy the 850 for enlargements.

Does the cell phone small diameter lens have more depth of field?