Sometimes and for some people. Yesterday I was asked to take some pictures at an internal event at work, which I was only too happy to comply with. I haven’t done this for several years, but it made me realise a few things.
First, while I have regretted at times the relative size of the Digital Kiss, it is a Canon EOS camera after all and behaves in operation just like my trusty EOS 5. So in terms of handling routine, it all came back to be pretty quickly and could concentrate on the job at hand, ignoring the camera.
Secondly, at occasions like these, why would anyone in their right mind prefer film for this? The instant feedback is priceless. Especially when taking photos of people talking – surprisingly difficult as they are mostly pictures frozen with funny facial expressions – you keep and eye on the LCD or go back through the last shots and see whether you nailed it or not. If you have you can move on, if not keep shooting till you have.
As a third point, a zoom lens will give you the flexibility needed to take a wide shot and from the same position zoom in and get a head shot. In situations where you cannot move around much, this is a must.
Lastly, there is cost and turnaround. This session has not cost me anything and I am able to provide results today.
What else do you need?
The moral of the story is that the tools always have to match the requirements of the task. The requirements of the professional photographer are entirely different from those of the amateur and it is thus pointless to debate what’s “better”. For my personal work, this setup would not satisfy me at all and the advantages are meaningless to me. For someone who does this for money I cannot see any reason whatsoever why you would not want to use digital. You can discuss endlessly about hidden costs or media failures, but those discussions take place on web bulletin boards, where most people are unable to deliver on an assignment even if it meant taking a picture of something in their own back yard.