Well, went and did research (gasp!) and found I had been lied to! Or at least to say it’s complicated. My statement does have merit in that yes! The most popular cameras from 2019 average 25 megapixels, and that puts it neck and neck to several uses of film (frequently animated uses).

I still think my primary argument is unchanged, but the precise details of my statement are somewhat hyperbolic. In my defence, “better than film” has been the marketing for at least a decade and there are things that digital photography shine at.

Still, thank you for keeping me in check.

https://www.learnfilm.photography/the-resolution-of-film-negatives/

Yes, but there’s so much more to compositing a good shot than just focal length. I’m recommending to a new hobbyist to walk before they run. Framing, lighting, perspective - a cheap phone from 2019 off eBay is still better than what your grandparents had, and is better than cameras from 99% of human history.

Dont spend money on fancy new cameras, chances are the camera in your phone is already better than 90% of all cameras in history. Don’t drop a dime on equipment until you’ve hit the limits of the hardware you already have.

The picture above isn’t a picture of what an expensive camera can do - it’s a picture of what a good photographer can do, enhanced by specialty equipment. In the hands of a novice the equipment cannot produce pictures like this.

Dungeon Crawler Carl by Matt Dinniman is a great contender for an end of the world scenario.

Tl;dr: aliens set loose a super intelligent AI on the planet as the gameshow host to the elimination of nigh all life on Earth, as part of a running Survivor-esque intergalactic production.

Or because the idiom “the elephant in the room” is being depicted literally (insinuating their medicated autistic child is ‘an unfortunate unwanted fact’ - which I personally feel is derogatory to the child)