5dmk3 with LR3?

pdx_btk78 wrote in post #14744914
I'm still using LR3 with DNG converter from adobe for processing my 5D3 files. The reason is because all of the reviews I've, the biggest compliant is the processing speed in LR4.1 seems to slow down a lot over time at least for the windows version. So I'm staying away from it for now until they have it fixed. The reviews on Amazon says that even the Adobe developers acknowledge that this issue exist, but doesn't seem to have a fix for it.

Anybody running LR4 on windows have the slow down issues?

Yes and no. If I'm doing a lot of cloning/healing it will start to slow down, but this is partly because of how LR handles these functions compared to PS. Also, if you do lens corrections first it can slow things down a bit. Another area is TIFF files after they come back from PS. I personally think this has to do with how PS compresses the TIFF when done as a Save, since I don't have this issue with TIFF files generated for/from plug-ins like Photomatix or even Perfect Resize. Of course, I'm running an AMD 1090T 6 core processor and 16GB of RAM which I'm sure helps things out a bit.
Once I downloaded LR4 I could have literally kicked myself for waiting.

LR4 is worth the upgrade.

I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure you could get the updates to process RAW files for free. Anyone know for sure?

Heck with all of them! Go back to shooting film!

Been using windows since 3.1. 7 is a great version, one of my favorites - and a worthwhile upgrade.

Been using Lightroom since LR2. I only upgraded because I couldn't be arsed to fiddle with alternate methods of working with the 5DIII files Messes with my workflow

Funny enough, XP was the OS I never fell in love with. It didn't significantly change things from Win 2K for me which is why I stayed on Win 2K for quite a while.

Vista, poor misunderstood and hated Vista, was an improvement for me because of several things. Primarily it was the improved ability to handle and actually use large amounts of RAM and multi-core processors more effectively. Vista had a high cost of entry in terms of hardware performance but once you passed it, then it was worth using. It wasn't perfect (no OS is) and a lot of third party companies really messed up their driver support. OEMs also had a habit of loading it on systems that really weren't up to the task and then bogging it down further with crud (MS, for some reason, thought machines that weren't "Vista ready" were).

Win 7 is really Vista part 2. It scales better to slower hardware and of course everyone else was finally getting used to the idea that we wouldn't be using or writing software and drivers just for Win XP forever. I have Win 7 running on a 1.6Ghz Pentium M laptop with 1.5GB RAM. It runs quite well. That's not a system I would run Vista on but I wouldn't really hold that against Vista. MS had its sights set too far ahead when people really weren't ready for it (and made mistakes, particularly in how they marketed and sold Vista). To actually pull off an OS9-to-OSX transition style maneuver seems likely to be impossible for MS because of the resistance in their install base and all the companies that contribute to the Windows ecosystem. OSX was quite disruptive in the Apple community.