New camera

[oldandslow]

It is attached to a phone which is nothing new but it has IS which allows me to take pictures that aren't fuzzy and includes zoom up to 15 X. I haven't been able to take  a decent picture with a phone for years  because of my shaky hands and phone cameras have improved a huge amount since then. I got it for the camera and phone use will remail the same, seldom used except as an anti-nag devise because my wife becomes upset when I go off without one. I rarely make a call and seldom receive one because the few people that have my number know that I rarely have it anywhere close by. No more carrying a camera specifically to take pictures unless I just want to. Now I can catch those oppertunities that pop up when I am cameraless. All I have to do is start carrying my new phone more.

PS: I am not informing anyone that calls me about carrying it more as I appreciate not being bothered by a phone. I had enough of that in my working years.

[Bob Riebe]

I grew up with manual focus, manual film setting cameras to the point when I was in school I dissed those who were using the latest-greatest auto exposure Nikons and Canons and thought if you need auto focus, you should not be taking pictures.
NOW
I still have film cameras, which sadly just sit there 98.6 percent of the time, but the ones I use are auto focus, auto exposure setting usually .
The true photo store I had my film developed is history, and yes I know you can go to Walgreens and have it done, but I have found in the past they are not as good as the real deal.

My brother gave me a small Sony digital that I use for posting online, when I used to do that, but last time, I took pictures on a trip, my cousin took one with his little digital, and I took one with my large film Canon of the same scene.
We both had prints made and compared prints, I was surprised he admitted my film camers photo was much better.

IF I had reason or places to take pictures again I would but now I just sit at home and when I do travel leave the camera/s at home and later wish I had taken one along.

Shaking, I am starting to worry about that; OK with cameras but shooting pistols it is becoming a problem.

[Graybeard]

I have the shakes so bad that off hand pistol shooting is a waste of time now. I also forget stuff badly with names whether of people or things being what I seem to forget most.

Reasons I worry about those things is that dad had Alzheimer's and mom had Parkinson's.

But since I have no been diagnosed with leukemia I might not have to worry about either of those.

Show us some photos from the new camera/phone. I've found I'm not smart enough to use a smart phone not even for photos.

I do have a brand new still unused digital SLR with some fancy close up and telephoto lens for it. I use a camera other than the game cameras so rarely I've still not taken a photo with it even tho I've had it about a year or so now.

[oldandslow]

I have an old Canon DSLR with a couple of good Canon lenses with AF and IS. Thing feels like it weighs a ton now. I went to a couple of long zoom cameras that weight much less and have a lot more zoom than the Canon. To get 60 0r 65 X that the smaller cameras are capable of  would take a lot of money and I sure wouldn't want to carry it. The smaller cameras give you an excellent picture if you don't want to enlarge too much and I don't. I just use AF now as I can't remember all the setting I need to go manual, just point, zoom to the image I want, and press the shutter. Another thing about the zoom feature is I no longer have to bend over to get a close up of flowers or anything else and I appreciate that. My worn out back hollers at me when I bend down.

When digitals took over from 35MM I just quit photography for sometime but I missed not being able to take pictures of places when we traveled and bought a little Canon IS3. That thing took great pictures but was limited on zoom as they all were then. As zoom capability increased I moved up a couple of times to what I have now. I bough one of them for my wife but she never uses it so I claim it as mine now. I had a great picture of clouds rolling down the north side of the Guadalupe mountains one morning that I took at 60x propped on the car door. Being a dummy I never got around to putting it on an external hard drive and lost it when a hard drive failed. Now the cloud takes care of that automatically.

Soon as I get something with the phone I think is interesting I will post it.

[Bob Riebe]

O&S:
That disagree thing should not be there but I hit the wrong one and I cannot get rid of it , sorry.

[oldandslow]

Shaky hand also? I sometimes manage to click on the wrong thing because of it.

[darkgael]

Nice to read about old film cameras. The quality of the prints is top shelf.
I have an old medium format film camera, a Bronica, that I take out when i want a good landscape shot. The thing weighs a ton and the shutter sounds like a gunshot when it drops (well, maybe not a gunshot. It is loud.)

[oldandslow]

My son is into old film cameras and mostly bellows Kodak ones. It all started when I gave him my mother's camera and the bellows had become to stiff and brittle to expand. He has a pretty good selection of them from a tiny one to a rather large heavy one and also a example of the first range finder one in good working condition. You can make new bellows plus find ready made ones for repair. Due to spending most of the year healing from an attempted rotator cuff repair that was too far gone to fix and the follow up shoulder replacement he has done nothing at all yet but says winter is an ideal time to get things like this done. He said he thinks it will be neat to take pictures with Nanny's camera that is now over 100 years old.

[Bob Riebe]

Nice to read about old film cameras. The quality of the prints is top shelf.
I have an old medium format film camera, a Bronica, that I take out when i want a good landscape shot. The thing weighs a ton and the shutter sounds like a gunshot when it drops (well, maybe not a gunshot. It is loud.)

Back when I was taking pictures, fairly often, I tried picking up a Speed Graphic, and even a Linhof on Ebay.
In reality good thing I did not as I rarely use them now, but the quality of a Four by Five negative is worth the money; way back, Linhof had Four by Five roll film back; saw one for sale on Ebay a decade or so ago, but it was four figures just for the back.

[ironglow]

  Collecting the old film cameras I suppose can be fun..rather like collecting arrow heads ..when you have a 6.5 Creedmore at home.
   That is how much photography has advanced in just a few years.  The new digital cameras offer so much more that the old film cameras can't begin to compete in any way.
  Some say the old film type produced some really great photos...and for their time they may have
  I don't speak from personally accrued knowledge, but from what I learned from watching my son operate.
 
  Quality of photos.. When working on portraits or with models, he photographs almost nothing close up, say inside 8-10 feet.  Not only better quality photos, but a good idea not to get too familiar with the models.

  He can take a photo at 10-20 feet and make the finest portrait you have ever seen...with each eyelash clearly and
  attractively delineated.
  So how is that done?  The magic of pixels...get a quality digital setup and you will start taking better photos..plus you can practice more often...just check photo immediately, and erase if you don't like any.How would you like to do shooting practice ...with NO ammo cost ?

  THe advantage of longer range portraits...they look more natural and keep the correct proportions..  Have you noticed how so many "selfies", since they are taken close up...seem to enlarge the nose?  That is because at such close range, the thing nearest the camera lens is proportionately, much closer and thus larger.

   Shaky hands...no problem.. put your camera on a lead sled, which of course, means a tripod.  For most amateurs, a 10 or 12 inch tripod will do.  For most shots you couyld set it on a table, stone wall or truck hood..

   And don't click the shutter with your shaky hand..don't touch the camera on the tripod.  While my son uses an electronic remote control for this job, there are mechanical remotes ..
  Mechanical activators can be found for most popular brands.  They are made somewhat like a tiny choke cable, and are flexible enough not to interfere with the camera.

    Incidentally, my son uses strictly Sony cameras..

   Below, see some of the magic of mega pixels at work..only a few seconds of each, and I don't know why they move so fast;

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpdfKkRP2BE

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilFLD3jYrYQ

[oldandslow]

Film cameras were just as capable of great pictures as the digitals of today. Thing is you can take a multitude of shots of the same subject with today's digitals for no cost except the camera it's self and the pick the best one or ones. Then there is digital editing to spiff them up even more. There is image stabilizing which allows shaky people like me to still take a decent picture that was not available with film cameras. Also most digitals now have the capability of an electronical delayed shutter built into the camera. Pick your delay time, press the shutter, remove your hand, and wait for the camera to take the picture. Pixel count makes for a better picture but it depend on what you are doing to how much you need a high pixel count. Personally I can see no difference in an 8X12 shot with a 10 or 24 pixel camera. Go larger and then it become obvious pretty quickly.

I do photography strictly for fun. I hate to admit it but I haven't taken a single picture with the new phone that started this thread.

[ironglow]

From O&S;

  " Film cameras were just as capable of great pictures as the digitals of today".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  Not quite.. did you view the video made with the higher pixel cameras of today?  You know as well as I do, that NO film camera ever made can anywhere near approach that resolution. Yes some of those are beyond the average photographer..at least for now...but they are coming around..and what the pros already have, is closer than what you may think.

  Your attempt to compare a "10 or 24 pixel camera", just doesn't apply; i doubt such a granular level is anywhere on the market today.  Even security cameras are heading for much higher resolutions.

  So here is the question...can you take a portrait some 10-12 feet distant, and still bring it up to 2 feet and catch every eyelash and whisker, with even the root being obvious.  Or pull it closer for an even greater magnification?

  Many basic cameras carry from 24 to 64 Megapixels.

   Nope, the old cameras can be fun, just as skinning a rabbit with a piece of sharp flint can be fun..but the more modern implements do the job much quicker and better.

 

[Bob Riebe]

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm#:~:text=35mm%20film%20is%2024%20x,x%200.1%2C%20or%2087%20Megapixels.

The Digital Resolution of Film

So how many pixels does it take to describe all the detail we can get from film?

Fuji Velvia 50 is rated to resolve 160 lines per millimeter. This is the finest level of detail it can resolve, at which point its MTF just about hits zero.

Each line will require one light and one dark pixel, or two pixels. Thus it will take about 320 pixels per millimeter to represent what's on Velvia 50.

320 pixels x 320 pixels is 0.1MP per square millimeter.

35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters.

To scan most of the detail on a 35mm photo, you'll need about 864 x 0.1, or 87 Megapixels.

But wait: each film pixel represents true R, G and B data, not the softer Bayer interpolated data from digital camera sensors. A single-chip 87 MP digital camera still couldn't see details as fine as a piece of 35mm film.

[Bob Riebe]

Film cameras were just as capable of great pictures as the digitals of today.  Personally I can see no difference in an 8X12 shot with a 10 or 24 pixel camera. Go larger and then it become obvious pretty quickly.

I do photography strictly for fun. I hate to admit it but I haven't taken a single picture with the new phone that started this thread.

The Kodak disc camers, for which I do not think you can get film, any where any more, had higher pixel count that the best phone camera today, and the disc film was piss poor compared to even 16mm mini-cameras or half-frame film. (An 8x10 picture will let one know how good their digital camera is {very same way that size would let one know how good their 35mm camera & lens were, 11x14 (absolute limit for only very, very best 35mm cameras and film,  to a much LARGER degree.})
The only thing that has let the VERY high priced digital cameras get close to film is the companies stopped developing film properties to improve it. ( Plus digital raw is not used, the photos are electronically altered for publication.)
No film has ever come very close to the quality of Kodachrome but no one has chemicals to develope Kodachrome for ten years now. (Kodak stopped producing it.)

[ironglow]

    Obviously I am not referring to cell phone cameras.  I was comparing the best film cameras to the average photographer's digital camera...anything less would be an exercise in futility.

   I an simply saying that today's photographer can do things with digital, that was never dreamed of with film camera.

   And just as surely, as it is getting more difficult to get things done with find goods and services for support, and it
   will only be more and more difficult, as time goes on.
   
   Try finding the same model cell phone you used 10 years ago... "Time and tide wait for no man".

  That gets me too..  I now have my third flip phone first one and best one lost in snowbank..didn't find till spring.
   Second one, a "Jitterbug" just flat QUIT on me about a month ago.."no service" it said.

  Call to Jitterbug..Verizon changed their system, cutting Jitterbug out.  Don't know if they will ever get it back, so My son looked long and hard to find a replacement, but I don't know when this one will poop out of service..

  They used to call that "planned obsolescence"..

  Keep in mind, film resolution is governed by by how many grains per square centimeter, or some such measure.

  Digital is way up in what? .. hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions pixels, to cover the same area .   

   Here, why portraits are done from across the room..as the man explains about half way through the video.

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBuaG1_sA5k

   If you take a portrait across the room with a film camera, by the time you  enlarge the negative far enough...

  You have a very fuzzy picture...not worth keeping.

[Bob Riebe]

The image on a 24x36 mm sensor ( now called full frame to differentiate it from the 12.4-megapixel   (effective), 23.3 x 15.5mm CMOS image sensor delivering image Nikon and Canon pro camers had in the first decade of digital cameras)  is the same size as it is on a section of 24x36 mm film, no difference .

35 mm camera film was in tens of millions of pixels;
35 mm: 24MM x36MM
Fuji Velvia 50 is rated to resolve 160 lines per millimeter. This is the finest level of detail it can resolve, at which point its MTF just about hits zero.

Each line will require one light and one dark pixel, or two pixels. Thus it will take about 320 pixels per millimeter to represent what's on Velvia 50.

320 pixels x 320 pixels is 0.1MP per square millimeter.

35mm film is 24 x 36mm, or 864 square millimeters = 87 Megapixels. ( That is on Velvia 50 now the best film available. (1 MP = 1 million pixels)

Professional portraits were done on 120 film medium format or 4x5 whose resolution (resolution on any, including digital cameras depends on the lens used. (Medium format film was was from 6 CM x 4.5CM to 6x9)

Top line lens cost thousand to tens of thousands of dollars) both of those formats FAR, FAR exceed the resolution (pixels) of 35 mm film or any digital camera.

At the same rates, 2-1/4" (56mm x 56 square) would be 313 MP, and 4x5" (95x120mm) would be 95 x 120 = 11,400 square millimeters = 1,140 MP

Here are the largest pixel digital cameras available:   

Medium format is any camera format that makes use of the 120 film size or utilizes a digital imaging sensor that mimics that size. This format captures images that are slightly smaller than the large format film size (102x127mm). However, they are much bigger than those taken using full-frame sensors or 135 film. There is now no standard size for medium format and it normally varies between manufacturers.[/b]

1. Hasselblad H6D-400C Multi-Shot --  53.4 x 40mm -- Megapixels: 100MP, 400MP Multi-Shot
$12,409
2. Fujifilm GFX 100 / Fujifilm GFX 100S -- medium format -- Megapixels: 102MP
3. Hasselblad X2D 100C                       -- Medium format -- Medium format -- Megapixels: 100MP
4. Phase One XF IQ4 150MP Camera System -- Medium format -- Megapixels: 151MP
5. Phase One XT                                   -- Medium format -- Megapixels: 151
6. Hasselblad H6D-100c                        -- Medium format -- Megapixels: 100MP
7. Sony A7R IV                                     -- Full frame -- Megapixels: 61MP
(full frame is the same size as a 35mm camera)
8. Sigma fp L                                        -- Full frame -- Megapixels: 61MP
9. Leica M11                                         -- Full frame -- Megapixels: 60.3MP   US$7,513
10. Pentax 645Z                                    --  Medium format -- Megapixels: 51.4MP  $3,996.95

All prices without a lens.

As the article above says, Velvia 50 35mm film now has 87 Megapixels, and at that there are still some commericial special films that are sharper than that, as was Kodachrome 25 , while medium format film is in billions of pixels.

[ironglow]

  If as O&S said, all he wants to do is place an addition on his phone  camera, that is probably a good move, if a cell phone photo is what he wants to use.
  However the flexibility of the digital is hard to beat....and in many places cannot be beat with any film camera.
 
    I personally know very little about the technology of of the scene, but I often go on shoots with my son acting as kind of a "gopher", and just trying to be useful.  I freely admit that I am deficient with this current high -tech stuff!
   So all I can speak from is what I observe.  I cannot recall a time when he took a "second shot", because he doubted
  how his first shot would come out.

   That being said, I can observe the shooting process and the output.  My son has been shooting over 40 years, taking
    the game seriously when he was a teenager.  He of course had his own group of cameras up through medium
    format,along with his own darkroom and processing set up.

    Now of course, most film cameras can be had for a song, since so many are switching over to digital.

  For real estate, when I travel with him..he starts doing outdoor shots, while I go through the house, turning
  on all the lights checking that nothing is out of place.  No tube of toothpaste left out or a lampshade set askew,
   and the rolls of toilet paper are folded and trimmed for show, etc..

   When he comes into the house, I stay out of sight, which includes mirror reflections too.  When he sets his tripod
   for a room he steps back and triggers the camera electronically.  The camera takes 5 shots..click, click, click, click
   click.  Then it combines all 5 shots to find the proper one.

    He does many drone flights.  In fact, the FAA keeps track of drone usage of all licensed pilots, and he  is among the
     top 1% of "frequent flyers". 
       With what I know about the aerial cameras, I don't believe film would be any place in the sky.

  First, to have a versatile drone, which can maneuver as his does, cargo weight must be small.  The Hasseblad camera on his drones is about the size of a ping-pong ball.
  We know any film camera would be much larger..and how well would it adapt, going say, from bright sunlight, into a dark warehouse?

     So, take a look at the below photo of an Amish owned B&B about 50 miles south of me in Pennsylvania. These are
 called "twilight photos" taken just after dark, and is becoming a popular part of real estate photography.
No flash or floods, no artificial lighting used
   I was on that job with him, and that was just one shot..the photo has not been rearranged a bit..outside of replacing a featureless sky.
  Pray, tell us how you would accomplish this with a film camera.

[oldandslow]

I never said one word about wanting to place an addition of any kind on my new cellphone camera. I simply said that with IS I could now take pictures with it that I couldn't with the old, non IS, one. Believe what you want about pixel count but the human eye is only capable of seeing so much detail. I have three digital cameras. One is an old 10 megapixel Canon and it provides highly detail pictures unless you try to blow them up too much. The other two are +20 megapixel and there is no difference between the three that I can see with the size of pictures I am interested in.

What I was stating was that film cameras were capable of high quality pictures back in the day with the right camera and the right film in the hands of someone that knew what they were doing. Digitals have made it much easier and I am not the least interested in going back although I do still have a pretty good 35mm so I could if I wished.

I knew I would get schooled when I replied to this. 

[Bob Riebe]

    I personally know very little about the technology of of the scene, but I often go on shoots with my son acting as kind of a "gopher", and just trying to be useful.  I freely admit that I am deficient with this current high -tech stuff!
   So all I can speak from is what I observe.  I cannot recall a time when he took a "second shot", because he doubted
  how his first shot would come out.

   That being said, I can observe the shooting process and the output.  My son has been shooting over 40 years, taking
    the game seriously when he was a teenager.  He of course had his own group of cameras up through medium
    format,along with his own darkroom and processing set up.

    Now of course, most film cameras can be had for a song, since so many are switching over to digital.
BINGO, there is the huge difference, film one could modifiy the image (print) by using photo tactics -- I went to school to learn and do it. It is not easy and takes time and often NOT once and done.
I used to go to photo meet where professional photographers bought and sold camera gear .  One gent said for customers I shoot digital, money and time, for me , film,  quality.



    He does many drone flights.  In fact, the FAA keeps track of drone usage of all licensed pilots, and he  is among the
     top 1% of "frequent flyers".    With what I know about the aerial cameras, I don't believe film would be any place in the sky.
 High speed film, and cameras do still exist, but use is rare.  The pawn show, I watch for the history part really, visited a shop where a gent,who had worked for and had warehouse full of ,most still functional, cameras by Charles Hulcher , the gentleman who pretty much perfected the portable high-speed film camera.
This site tell the current state of affairs (this is the place Pawn Shop visited) There are large hundreds of pounds high speed film cameras, that shoot ten times the film rate of the fastest Hulcher Camera but cost six to seven figures sixty years ago and were HUGE.

https://www.wired.com/2012/08/hulcher-high-speed-cameras/

The small one the woman is holding is one I coveted when I was studing photography (Along with a Linhof 4x5 ariel roll film camera, but back then four figures would be equivalent to five to six figures.

  First, to have a versatile drone, which can maneuver as his does, cargo weight must be small.  The Hasseblad camera on his drones is about the size of a ping-pong ball.
  We know any film camera would be much larger..and how well would it adapt, going say, from bright sunlight, into a dark warehouse?
Size, digitals best friend, even using 16mm film, you are speaking of pounds verses how many ounces a chip weighs.
Film type determined ease, or possibility of taking a picture, which is one of several reason professionals had multiple cameras, and for years a flunky to act as a beast of labor.

     So, take a look at the below photo of an Amish owned B&B about 50 miles south of me in Pennsylvania. These are
 called "twilight photos" taken just after dark, and is becoming a popular part of real estate photography.
No flash or floods, no artificial lighting used
   I was on that job with him, and that was just one shot..the photo has not been rearranged a bit..outside of replacing a featureless sky.
  Pray, tell us how you would accomplish this with a film camera.

That CAN be done with film, BUT, it amounts to a LOT of work, often dodge and burn printing which your son knows well takes time and often repeat trys.
This is why some photographers do not call a digital picture a photo, they call it an image, as it is created on a computer.
There they can do stuff film cannot do, UNLESS , you scan the photo onto a computer, then it can be Cleaned Up, as it is usually called. (some not good film images CAN be made presentable. )

Now the digital printing products have changed, some like some film types, are now just a part of history, but the newer ones (and even this is not wham-bam-thank you-mam quick either, there is still time involved but on a computer not in a dark room.)
Have your son, if he wants to, give you a print using just digital raw . :What is a RAW file?
 A RAW file is lossless, meaning it captures uncompressed data from your camera sensor. Sometimes referred to as a digital negative, you can think of a RAW file as the raw “ingredients” of a photo that will need to be processed in order to bring out the picture's full potential.

One last , kinda-sorta, advantage or difference between film and digital: Film can be enlarged, losing sharpness until it is just black and white or colored mush; digital because the pixels are not points but little squares (Foveon is a bit different) and the image will just turn into a screen full of squares totally losing any sort of image.

In either format, the sharpness of the lens used determines how sharp an image can be regardless of format.

How much film gear costs now is what used to be amatuer gear, pennies on ten dollars; old pro gear and top line lenses, from still full price to five dollars where it used to be ten.

[ironglow]

I never said one word about wanting to place an addition of any kind on my new cellphone camera. I simply said that with IS I could now take pictures with it that I couldn't with the old, non IS, one. Believe what you want about pixel count but the human eye is only capable of seeing so much detail. I have three digital cameras. One is an old 10 megapixel Canon and it provides highly detail pictures unless you try to blow them up too much. The other two are +20 megapixel and there is no difference between the three that I can see with the size of pictures I am interested in.
t film in the hands of someone that knew what they were doing.igh quality pictu Digitals have made it much easier and I am not the least interested in going back although I do still have a pretty good 35mm so I could if I wished.

I knew I would get schooled when I replied to this. 

   Key statement...
 
   "What I was stating was that film cameras were capable of hres back in the day with the right camera and the right"

  The highlighted words explain much...exactly what I was speaking about.

   

  ..And as I said, I was only speaking as an observer...not as an operator.  I don't believe I am mistaken in thinking the versatility of digital is beyond the old film cameras.

  Of that photo I offered, how would you accomplish that  with a film camera?

  In any case don't consider yourself as "schooled'; I guess I should offered my usual imprimatur... that you can either "take it or trash it".
     Actually, you likely have more photography experience than do I..so I'll let it go as that..

[oldandslow]

"I don't believe I am mistaken in thinking the versatility of digital is beyond the old film cameras."

Of course they are and I never said the were not. I will again point out that I was just stating that high quality pictures were possible back in film days. As to the picture you posted it would probably be impossible IMHO with a film camera as digitals have much better low light capability and with that I am done with this.
 

[ironglow]

    I personally know very little about the technology of of the scene, but I often go on shoots with my son acting as kind of a "gopher", and just trying to be useful.  I freely admit that I am deficient with this current high -tech stuff!
   So all I can speak from is what I observe.  I cannot recall a time when he took a "second shot", because he doubted
  how his first shot would come out.

   That being said, I can observe the shooting process and the output.  My son has been shooting over 40 years, taking
    the game seriously when he was a teenager.  He of course had his own group of cameras up through medium
    format,along with his own darkroom and processing set up.

    Now of course, most film cameras can be had for a song, since so many are switching over to digital.
BINGO, there is the huge difference, film one could modifiy the image (print) by using photo tactics -- I went to school to learn and do it. It is not easy and take time and often NOT once and done.
I used to go to photo meet where professional photographers bought and sold camera gear .  One gent said for customers I shoot digital, money and time, for me , film,  quality.



    He does many drone flights.  In fact, the FAA keeps track of drone usage of all licensed pilots, and he  is among the
     top 1% of "frequent flyers".    With what I know about the aerial cameras, I don't believe film would be any place in the sky. High speed film, and cameras still exist, but use is rare.  The pawn show, I watch for the history part really, visited a shop where a gent,who had worked for and had warehouse full of ,most still functional, cameras by Charles Hulcher , the gentleman who pretty much perfected the portable high-speed film camera.
This site tell the current state of affairs (this is the place Pawn Shop visited) There are large hundreds of pounds high speed film cameras, that shoot ten times the film rate of the fastest Hulcher Camera but cost six to seven figures sixty years ago and were HUGE.

https://www.wired.com/2012/08/hulcher-high-speed-cameras/

The small one the woman is holding is one I coveted when I was studing photography (Along with a Linhof 4x5 ariel roll film camera, but back then four figures would be equivalent to five to six figures.

  First, to have a versatile drone, which can maneuver as his does, cargo weight must be small.  The Hasseblad camera on his drones is about the size of a ping-pong ball.
  We know any film camera would be much larger..and how well would it adapt, going say, from bright sunlight, into a dark warehouse?
Size, digitals best friend, even using 16mm film, you are speaking of pounds verses how many ounces a chip weighs.
Film type determined ease, or possibility of taking a picture which is one of several reason professionals had multiple cameras, and for years a flunky to act as a beast of labor.

     So, take a look at the below photo of an Amish owned B&B about 50 miles south of me in Pennsylvania. These are
 called "twilight photos" taken just after dark, and is becoming a popular part of real estate photography.
No flash or floods, no artificial lighting used
   I was on that job with him, and that was just one shot..the photo has not been rearranged a bit..outside of replacing a featureless sky.
  Pray, tell us how you would accomplish this with a film camera.

That CAN be done with film, BUT, it amounts to a lot of work, often dodge and burn printing which you son knows well takes time and often repeat trys.
This is why some photographers do not call a digital picture a photo they it an image, as it is created on a computer.
Now the digital printing products have changed, some like some film types, are now just a part of history, but the newer ones (and even this is not wham-bam-thank you-mam quick either, there is still time involved but on a computer not in a dark room.
Have your son, if he wants to, give you a print using just digital raw . :What is a RAW file?
 A RAW file is lossless, meaning it captures uncompressed data from your camera sensor. Sometimes referred to as a digital negative, you can think of a RAW file as the raw “ingredients” of a photo that will need to be processed in order to bring out the picture's full potential.

One last , kinda-sorta, advantage or difference between film and digital: Film can be enlarged, losing sharpness until it is just black and white or colored mush; digital because the pixels are not points but little squares (Foveon is a bit different) and the image will just turn into a screen full of squares totally losing any sort of image.

In either format, the sharpness of the lens used determines how sharp an image can be regardless of format.

How much film gear costs now is what used to be amatuer gear, pennies on ten dollars; old pro gear and top line lenses, from still full price to five dollars where it used to be ten.

   Speaking as an observer only...  Some clients i  the tourism industry..Air B&B , but not necessarily that brand name,
  only want raw files.. He is reticent to send them off except as an incognito move.  He says when their editors get hold of a good photo, they mess it all up.  He doesn't want his name on it unless he finishes it.

   Then in real estate... there is Euro style and American style. American style allows the photographer to find the best angle to shoot from. while the Euro style only wants straight on shots....like taking a picture of a room or scene  straight on, no imagination.

  Of course, in real estate as well as any other photographic field, the photographer is about 90% of the game.

  One realtor my son spoke to, was taking his own photos with a cell camera.  My son offered one free shoot to acquaint him with his work. The realtor said.."my cell phone is working fine".
   A couple days later, an agent working for that realtor, called my son, and hired him for a shoot..  About a week later Gordy (the realtor) called and wanted my son to do some work for him, saying that the shoot he just did..sold the home in 2 days ...and for $40K more than the asking price (competing bids).  So now Gordy leaves his cell camera out of the mix...and only uses the one photographer.  My son has several clients like that..exclusive.

   Then there is the other fields  models and advertising. Not just seeing what is there and the potential, but being pleasant to work with, helping with professional connections etc...all point to success.

  Advertising...back in 2021 My son and grandson collaborated on a commercial for Mercedes Benz.  When an acquaintance who at the time, worked for CBS in NY City, saw the commercial..he entered it for an international "Telly" award....somewhat like an Oscar for commercial producers.
   Judged in Paris that year...among over 12,000 entrants, they brought home the bronze trophy..

  Below; see trophies..one for my son, one for grandson..  Those dang things are heavy..must go 10-15 pounds apiece.

[oldandslow]

I said I was done with this but here is a little thought. It might have been more Gordy's photo taking ability than the cellphone camera. Some people are more capable than others in most anything. Cellphone cameras are very good today, especially those of the iphone14 pro. You don't realise just how much it pains me to brag on anything apple makes.

Now I will go away.

[ironglow]

  But realtors throughout the area, are willing to put their money where their mouth is.  They can take thier own photos with a cell cam, but so many are willing to pay the price for professional work.
   
   Certainly after experiencing the difference....Gordy does!  They seek my son out..and pay a premium..because it pays to hire him.  Say, you have a $4 million or $40 million dollar business to sell..if investing $500-$800 extra bucks in the effort is actually "small change"..

  The top real estate firms, the top leaders in every major market area, share a magazine produced especially for them.

  It is called "Real Producers"..  The magazine selects about 2-3 staff photographers..no flybys..just top shelf camera guys.

  My son is one of three they call upon for such work for the local magazine..

 https://www.realproducersmag.com/locations/buffalo-real-producers-c63c/

  Actually what one would see as "snooty" people, but the realty world sees as the cream of the crop..  These folks
   make millions, and are proud of their success, just as in any profession.

  As photographer..my son was rated nationally as the #1 commercial photographer in this half of this state.

  No credit to me, since I would make a great comedy show with my photographic abilities...or rather lack thereof.