Correct exposure is a photo that looks the way it did in real life, to human eyes. I am of the opinion that once you cross the line of reproducing your own visuals, its no longer just a photo. Where do we draw the line? Is a digital creation an actual photo? I've seen some CG that looks nearly real, more real than some actual photos after heavy NR. Reducing noise is fine, bc my eyes dont see the noise irl, so we are trying to make it a more faithful recreation of reality. But if you are trying to capture a scene to save, I would rather keep that moment true to real life. This means accurate exposure.Is that really underexposure? The concept of 'correct' exposure is sort of made up. You are more or less always making trade-offs. Perhaps you could explain the definition of 'correct' exposure?Yea you can under or over expose and later PP it, but there are always side affects like more noise when pulling shadows. Overexpose and you risk clipping. The only time you SHOULD underexpose is when the DR of a scene is immense, and you need to preserve highlights.With the A77 Sony luckily gave us the choise: Accepting some noise and keep ultra fine detail, or smooth out noise at post processing and accept some loss of detail. Very good for photographers who have left the point & shoot level.
Tell me, if you overexpose to reduce noise, how do you know what the real lighting of the scene was later on when you are doing PP? Arent you just guessing?
Either way, you lose shutter speed, and a camera with better noise performance will be able to offer the same noise at a higher iso (and faster shutters along with it). THIS IS THE POINT . Every camera can do what you are talking about, but a camera with less noise to begin with will also end up with less noise.
doesnt that go without saying for any camera? plz tell me how the a77 is better than the a33 in this?
