dugby

I would expect that the hot shoe is made of a high tensile steel for mechanical strength as it’s a structural mount point for speed lights, EVFs and thumb-mounts, whereas the black painted top is brass (relatively soft compared to steel).

KTMrider2, My photographic history and usage is similar to yours. Occasionally I still access my old M240 which I gifted to my son, after I bought a silver M10-R. The M10-R is outstanding in every way over the M240(which by itself, is still a brilliant camera). I think enough is written about it's features & benefits amongst the 240/10x/11x families. I have de-badged both cameras in attempt to avoid questions about the red dot. I actually prefer being stereotyped as "the old guy with an odd looking $100 pawn shop vintage camera". I thoroughly enjoy using the M10-R with 50APO for it's simplicity and quietness. I worked in high-technology for almost 40yrs, and in retirement have a great dislike for complications in my technology choices, and so the M10-R totally meets my expectations. I and my family are always thrilled to see the M10-R/50APO images. I hope you find similar enjoyment in your choice.

Sorry to see the freeze virus come to Perth, with the current string of 41C days already getting us hot under the collar. I know that dreaded Leica failure feeling when my Digilux 2 sensor died in 2006, the round trip Perth - Germany - Perth was 5 months. Hope you can work out a local resolution with CES.

I purchased and use ISOBUSTER, for all my storage device issues. https://www.isobuster.com/ Recently used it to recover a DNG that I had intentionally deleted “in camera on SD card” , and later decided I wanted the DNG. ISObuster is the fastest recovery tool I’ve used in 40years of working with such tools. For the record, the only affiliation I have with ISObuster, is that I’m a very satisfied customer.

Thankyou Adam for reviewing my dcp, and providing the correct Adobe version of the dcp file for the M10-R I have loaded your "LEICA M10-R Adobe Standard.dcp" file into my LR6.14 and now as I toggle the camera profile, yours displays in the pull down as "Adobe Standard" Now as I toggle between the M10-R profile provided by Leica from within the DNG versus that provided by you, I do notice a slight change to some colours in the image, though all quite minimal, and insufficient to ascertain one being more or less desirable than the other. The variation between the two dcp files effects on a M10-R image is so subtle, I once again conclude that Leica did a great job with their version of the M10-R dcp and that my confidence in the Leica provided version remains high. Thankyou for responding and assisting.

Hi Adam. Thankyou for providing the above tips. Whilst I have always been satisfied with how the stand-alone perpetual Lightroom 6.14 has handled my M10-R DNG development processing, I was always curious about what could be different with an Adobe Standard camera profile for the M10-R. I followed your documented steps in 2022, and was unable to see a difference in switching between the M10-R profile that came within the DNG and that from a created .dcp using the above steps. So in 2024 I have reproduced the above steps to create a .dcp from an M10-R DNG converted to DNG, and exported the new profile into the appropriate Windows folders detailed in your steps. In LR6.14 with a loaded M10-R DNG, as I toggle the camera profile between "M10-R" and "Adobe Standard Leica M10-R" and still don't see any difference to the image. However as I observe the histogram for the image during the toggling between camera profiles, I do see a very slight movement in the histogram, but if I blinked I would not have seen those histogram changes. I am starting to think that Leica's M10-R dcp embedded in the DNG has been well created for Lightroom.6.14 Have enclosed a copy of the dcp Adobe Standard Leica M10-R.dcp

I still have and delight in seeing images from both of my M240 and M10-R. What I have determined is how one chooses to develop a DNG can have more tangible effects on an image, and therefore one's opinion of either camera. I have two lenses which have more effects on the image, than the above two cameras, eg a Zeiss Planar ZM 50mm f2 vs APO-Summicron-M 50mm I have decided , that the M10-R easily surpasses the M240 in all features, (except battery life), and found it difficult to shoot with the M240 again. The M240 is just too thick and bulkier for my hands. Shooting with the M10-R with the larger ISO and bigger image just just elevates my endorphins to much higher levels over the M240, and I love that new quieter M10-R shutter. I still use my Adobe Lightroom 6.14 perpetual license, that came with my M240, to process the M10-R images. It only took a couple DNG developments to seal-the-deal for me.

Adam, Thankyou for taking the effort to provide the above 3(4) images, it would be interesting for you to inform us as to which of the images more closely resembles reality.

I am using the last perpetual licenced Adobe Lightroom v6.14 (on Windows 11 PRO) which came with my M240, and am most pleased with the development of my M10-R DNGs. However as a retired technologist, I am a little surprised about the apparent working coexistence of technologies in my scenario below: - Adobe Lightroom v6.14 was released December 2017 - M10 was released Jan 2017 - M10-R was released July 2020 ---------------------------------------------------- In my "Develop Menu" of Lightroom 6.14 - Camera Calibration - Process: 2012 (Current) - Profile: Leica M10-R I am very happy with the resulting exports of LR6.14 developed M10-R DNGs but am surprised that a 2017 software release can interpret the "2020 M10-R" I have neither modified nor created an M10-R profile for my LR6.14, it just displays the profile by default against my DNGs. Hoping that those experienced Adobe LR users here, could shed some light (pun intended !) on this please.

I suggest it could be an intermittent internal-camera issue, as all images natively light up the sensor upside down, and upon triggering the firmware records and associates the image and metadata for that shot.

I would have thought your M10-D (screenless M10-P) would be a sufficient M whilst your M10-R is away ?

Words cannot describe how much daily walking you’ll do between subway stations & cabs, unless you have a driver. After “lost-count” visits to NYC, each next trip becomes a checklist- have I got the lightest comfortable shoes lightest convenient single lens on my M. There are too many iconic photos taken by others that I chose not to replicate, but shoot an alternative perspective with just a single 50APO which yields more interesting moments

M10-R with 50APO is sweet magic to my photographic lifestyle in mot having to think about which lens to use, and truly a blessing to avoiding neck / backaches. They are my capture everywhere combo.

How about covering the tiny windows (either something on the outside, or inside) at the rear to see how the removal of the light from there, changes the images. As a temporary test, if the windows are small, cut some cardboard to fit the windows,

In preparation for a significant journey to the other side of the globe, I purchased extra batteries for my M10-R and a Nitecore ULM10-Pro (updated) dual charger (manufactured late 2021). In testing 3 different USB power supplies I have noticed different outcomes. When I use a QC3 rated USB power supply, the Nitecore will charge two batteries simultaneously, quickly - but I avoid fast charging any batteries so as to prolong battery life. When I use a 5V-2A Samsung charger, the two batteries will as documented only charge sequentially. However I noticed three of my batteries were identified as “Good” and one was identified as ”normal”. Now I have decided to use an Apple supplied 5V-1A (lightest and smallest) power supply which has now satisfactorily charged the batteries and the fourth battery is labeled “Good”. Just wondering other Nitecore user’s experiences with the ULM10 and M10 batteries?