I didn't take the time to read all of the various recommendations, so forgive me if someone has already recommended this.
Fuji XT-10
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1149209-REG/fujifilm_16470817_x_t10_mirrorless_digital_camera.html

There are several reasons why I'm recommending this camera.

1. It's easy to use. it even has a switch dedicated to putting the camera in automatic. And automatic mode works pretty good. It's far less intimidating if you know the switch is always there in case you get stuck. I use Nikon D800e and Sony A7rII bodies. Not only are they expensive are also very complicated. In fact the general consensus is that Sony's menu systems are the least intuitive of all brands. You can get a great deal on a Sony a6000, but if it's complicated you can lose the fun factor. If you lose the fun factor you're not going to want to take pictures.

2. Size and weight. This camera is very small and light. But it's not so small that it's hard to hold. In other words it will be easy to cart around all over Alaska.

3. Image quality. The Fuji image quality is very good. But also important is the quality of the JPGs. You may not want to learn how to process raw images, so having a camera that has good JPEG's is a big advantage. Also Fuji makes wonderful glass. Even the inexpensive kit lens will take wonderful photos.

4. Image size. As a professional my clients want the highest quality image which means a very large image. This means tons of storage and computer power to process these images. Unless you're going to be selling your images, you don't need giant files. The Fuji's 16 megapixel file looks great, can be printed large, but doesn't require tons of storage, Or a high-end computer processes. during a trip like this you should be taking thousands of photos. Go through them and throw away 80%, keeping the best 20%. In this scenario 16 megapixels has an advantage over 24. this is probably a trip you're not going to take every day so don't be shy, take tons of photos. When you think you've taken enough you're probably not even halfway there. And I would start doing this the minute you get the camera he used to how it works...

5. Room to grow. Having a interchangeable lens camera means that you can grow your system over time adding lenses and accessories. If you get a good point-and-shoot, not only will the image quality not be as good, you'll be limited to that one lens. also if there's a scratch on the lens or something stops working, you might as well throw it away. Fuji on the other hand has tremendous customer support if the lens were to break or get damaged you just get it fixed.

Next of all don't forget extra batteries, memory cards, car charger, lens cleaning cloth, I would even get a lightweight tripod. Notice that I didn't say cheap tripod! Stay away from anything less than hundred dollars, but you shouldn't spend more than 200. most professionals and Instructors will tell you that there are 3 factors to taking better photos first practice second getting a tripod, for practice some more.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1129297-REG/3_legged_thing_e3vyv_23mm_punks_vyv.html

You don't need to buy this stuff from B&H, check Amazon, Adorama, Sammy's camera etc.

Have fun, and safe travels...

This is a ridiculous discussion that has been going on since the beginning of time. Artistes are supposed to be more creative and open minded. But throughout history artists in the established mediums have looked down on new forms.

There are still our galleries that will not display photography for this very narrow minded reason. The idea that a darkroom print is superior, seems very odd. You could make an argument that darkroom prints are fragile, or darkroom prints are not as easily replicated.
I have spent a lot of time in the darkroom, and I have a real affinity for the process. It is certainly different than digital, but in no way is it more precious, whatever that means.

This sounds like "my art is more difficult to produce therefore it is superior"...

Just talk to a watercolor painter, they'll tell you the same thing about a painter that uses acrylic, and they will tell you the same thing about a photographer, and so on.

in the end it's fair to say "I like darkroom prints better than digital". But when you say that digital prints are inferior (no more than high-quality posters) that's ridiculous.

For image quality, there isn't much difference. The advantages are the durability, handling, but most importantly the ability to use more lenses. There's no way to recommend an upgrade, without understanding what type of photography are doing. However there is a general rule that upgrading lenses is far better than reading camera bodies. Also if you upgrade a lens, and it covers full frame, then the future you can upgrade for free body. In that case you will definitely see a big difference in image quality.

There are lots of great things to see down there. I am a member of the San Diego zoological Society. IMHO The wild animal Park is better than the zoo. Mostly because it's less crowded and much more casual. That being said there both pretty great. If you're planning on going to La Jolla, don't miss the scripps pier.

Love Valley of Fire. Great photos :P

:thumbup:

Actually, they do show the actual shutter count. And if you have Photoshop it's relatively easy to find. Menu/ file/ file info-raw data.
You're referring to is the image numbering information. Not sure if you can change that to be a 5 or 6 digit number.

I have to agree with the OP, that all camera manufacturers should include this with their boxed software.

Unfortunately if you're going to do interior architectural/real estate photography, you need to have some wide glass. I would get the widest lens your budget will allow. Then shoot your house first to get used to it. Tripod -
cable release -
keep the camera as level as possible -
exposure bracket 3-5 shots (keep the aperture constant) -
Use a white balance card -
Lowest ISO -

Then over shoot it
Lights on lights off -
Window blinds open then closed -
Use F11 good DOF but stars around lights, F5.6 less stars, as they can be distracting especially in bath rooms. -

Look on You Tube for photographing real estate and a hotel room for good pointers.

The light leak issue that is causing sony to repair certain cameras is actually quite common. The Canon 5D Mark3 had a similar issue. Most of these "rollout QC problems" get blown out of proportion. Keep in mind that this is not a image quality issue.

The real question is why the two cameras that you are considering are vastly different.

The Leica is APS-C, 16 megapixel, no view finder, The intent of this camera is to be rugged/ water resistant...
The Sony's full frame 42 megapixel, with viewfinder, and considerably smaller...

A better comparison for the Sony would be Leica Q, which many photographers prefer over the Sony. Almost every reviewer says for pure image quality the Sony is better, however they would grab the Leica first.

A better comparison for the Leica X-U would be the Fuji (they have several models that would be comparable). these cameras will be much more comparable, with the exception of price and whether resistance of course.

So the question is are you only taking pictures underwater? If not I would get the Fuji and a good underwater housing.

I have the Sigma, and Nikon. Nikon is smaller and lighter, with a little more reach. The Sigma is noticeably sharper, and feels better in the hand.

Not that I would suggest making a decision based on one reviewer, but Tony Northrup recommends this lens highly. In fact they took a trip with one camera and one lens, and this was the lens.

Data? Are you asking about the technical difference between 12 bit and 14 bit images?

Or are you looking for examples of why 14 is better than 12? Spoiler, it's not always better. However newer cameras (D800 included) have much better chips and A/D converters, and therefore take advantage of the extra depth. Most of the time you'll see the difference in a blue sky the color gradation is subtle. If you've ever taken a picture of a blue sky in JPEG, then raised the contrast might see banding and sometimes pixelation. This is caused by the lack of bit depth. Most of the comparisons between 12 bit and 14 bit that don't show much difference are based on older cameras, that didn't take full advantage of the extra information. In this article...

http://www.dpbestflow.org/camera/sensor#depth

"The latest Sony sensors, used in Nikon, Pentax and Sony cameras, have very low noise levels and high dynamic range and so are close to being able to generate genuinely useful 14-bit data.

As sensor technology continues to evolve, lower noise levels and greater dynamic range promise to make high bit depth capture a useful feature in future cameras."

BUT For me, technical jargon aside, I just want the best possible file. Especially if I'm working, or traveling. If I'm working my client expects it, if I'm traveling I may not be back to that area for some time if ever.


Or is this strictly a size comparison?

:thumbup: :thumbup:
This is so true. focusing on critical sharpness can be a huge mistake. There are many things that make a photograph and sharpness is just one.

In my opinion the order is, subject matter, composition, then technique. And then where do you rank sharpness in the group of "technique"? that goes to your second point of what is the final product going to look like. In a small web image sharpness would be way down the list, a small print in my be higher, a very large print it might be your the top of technique.

You just leave a little space between them.

I agree with Ron, lossless compressed – 14 bit, the only time I would go to 12 bit is if I knew it was very low contrast subject matter (or images that I was going to convert black and white). Personally I would bring more memory cards before I would go to 12.

I agree that the number of focus points has become a marketing tool, and is not necessarily useful. And I am also a person who likes to focus and re-compose using the center focus point. However I know that with certain lenses the field curvature will change the plane of focus when I move the camera. Focus And re-compose simply does not work in every situation. if you ask me we don't need more focus points, just better focus points spread out over more of the frame.