I recently received a Nikon D700, and was incredibly disappointed and annoyed that I cannot view or modify the NEF files from that model in Lightroom 1.x (software with which I have been entirely happy up to this point).
I went ahead and downloaded 2.2 and am running it under terms of the free 30-day trial.
The new version is running so slowly that I cannot fathom paying for it. Yet apparently I will be unable to use my D700 the way I need to without it.
I always leave the images in their original location when importing, and I've tried having the original images on first one, and then the other of my internal drives; it's equally slow regardless of where the files are located.
My PC is well outdated (3.0 GHz P4 with 3GB of RAM on XP Pro, dual internal SATA drives); however, this machine performed quite adequately with D3 RAW images using LR 1.4. I do have a quad-core (Intel) Mac Pro, but I much prefer using the PC for my photo work.
Note: I did not uninstall LR 1.4 before installing 2.2. Should I have done so? Would this make a difference, in your opinion (or in fact)?
- Do you find LR 2.x to be inherently slower than 1.x?
- Is there anything I can do, short of replacing the PC or switching to using the Mac?
- If you're happy with the performance of LR 2.x on your machine, can you summarize your PC's specs?
Thanks!
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Sorry but I can't answer your question directly, however...
If you have a Mac why not try a trial of Aperture? I've been using it for over two years now and love it. It processes Canon 5D MkII raws beautifully so I'm sure it'll handle the D700 with speed.
I'm not a heavy Lightroom user but I saw no noticeable change in speed when moving from v1 to v2 on a MacBook Pro.
On a side note, you should be able to use your D700 images in 1.4 if you use the latest DNG convertor and convert before importing them. Maybe that will at least buy you some time until you can sort out issues with 2.2. I'm a Mac based Canon shooter so I haven't tried this but it's a common workaround that has been effective in similar circumstances.
Terry, like Bob Smith, I did not experience a noticeable performance change, but again, I’m on a Mac. I will conjecture, however, that your 3GB of RAM could conceivably be an issue: can you determine whether your computer is hammering the virtual memory when you're using Lightroom?
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I have noticed that version 2.2 is slower. I'm using a Mac Pro with 3 gig of ram.
Mostly what is slower is the rendering of all the shots in the catalog. I'm used to quickly opening the library module and moving a cross the shots quickly to see how they look. It now can take a few minutes for these previews to render and then it's as fast as version 1.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I have recently upgraded from 2.0 to 2.2 and noticed of slowed my comp to a crawl and even locking up. 2.0 was lightning fast and I could run other apps (even watch a movie on iTunes). I'm going to uninstal l2.2 and run 2.0.
Jeff and “pumpdog”: are you running Lightroom 2.2 in 32-bit mode or 64-bit mode? If you’re hardware-capable for running Lightroom in 64-bit, be sure to try that before giving up on 2.2.
Incidentally, you’re not alone. Version 2.2 of Lightroom seems to have memory allocation problems on both Windows and Mac, although they aren’t necessarily the exact same problem.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Linear Mode
