Who uses Apple's Aperture?

I've been using Aperture since I first started with digital photography and while I read how large a market share they have on the professional photography market I don't see many people on this forum using it.

Who else uses Aperture for their workflow and raw conversions?

I just started using it after I got my 30D last week. Still learning and I like it because it has the look and feel of iPhoto

BTW, I am not expert to say if its better than Lightroom or Photoshop.

I tried aperture using the free 30 day trial. I went with Lightroom only because I got a free version. I think I liked Aperture a bit more and might eventually plunk down the cash for it.

I use aperture. I like everything about it except it's speed. I use it on my G4 powerbook and G5 imac...2 gig ram and it's still very slow. If it would run faster, I'd 100% endorse it.

I have lightroom too. If lightroom would fix it's oversharpening problem and a few of it's glitches, it already moves a lot faster so I'll probably use it when they fix the issues. For now, Aperture is better. It does everything right but it's SO SLOW.

I'm a big fan of Aperture. I've done quite a few comparative tests between it and Lightroom, and I always seem to prefer the Raw conversions from Aperture (maybe its a personal thing). The file management side is excellent too.

I'd love it even more if it had Lightrooms UI, highlight recovery, and vibrance controls.

Shame it doesnt run as quick as LR though

I downloaded the trial when I first got my MBP... and I hated it. The program (though I only had 1GB of ram at the time) ran ridiculously slow on my laptop, to the point that it was almost unusable. I got Lightroom hoping it would be faster, and it was MUCH faster and I thought worked a lot better. Maybe on 2GB of ram Aperture would be better, but I came away very displeased with its performance.

JMO

One thing with Aperture to keep in mind is other than lots of ram and a reasonably good processor speed, it uses a LOT of the graphics card.
So when I get my next Mac it's a MacPro with 512MB of vram probably the ATI.

This is why Aperture is slower than C1, LR, DPP etc it relies a lot on video ram.
Since i have the ATI 128MB card and a 1gig of ram on the 1.5Ghz PB, it's not that bad but would certainly be better with 2gigs of ram

I've been using Aperture since v.r. 1.1 on my Mac Mini with its GMA graphics. It does quite well, rendering raw files in about 2 or 3 seconds.

I use Aperture 1.5.3. since last 2 months after I tried trial and I was impressed with it before I bought it from NAB at near LAX.

I love it so much! Aperture's little slower dont bother me because it is easiest useful than you use PS, which make your post processing flawless and less stress.

I love Aperture's compress Jpeg for web. Their jpeg size and quality seem outrank PS and firework. Apeture's Jpeg seem high quality and lower MB size at same time!

Aperture's problems are sharpening filter and noiseware.

They seem both not work. This forced me to save them in PSD then transfer them to PS for sharpen and noiseware jobs.

I hope that Apple fix them sooner!

I feel that my money spent for Aperture is worth.