If you are using the beta version---having gone through a number of them, don't consider that as being like the finished. I can't even open the print module LOL. If your camera is supported, why not try the 2.5 demo?? My G1 and GF1 are supported (I think the E-P1 also) and on an XP Pro machine (admittedly built for photo editing), its not really slow. The only time I feel that is returning from Develop to Library--but as I can open the folders previously from Develop, its really a moot point. I have no idea though how it acts on a Mac.
Diane
HI Diane
I did a similar comparison about 12 months ago when I had the Sony A900 which wasn't supported by Aperture. I looked again around July when I was testing the M9
Truth is that for both the Sony A900 and the M8 and M9, Aperture does much better conversions than LR 2.5 (at least, I think that it does). I don't need the demo as I own a license! Added to which the printing for larger print sizes is a whole different world better in Aperture. Of course, this is only my opinion, but I'm not alone.
However, the LR 3 conversions look pretty good, certainly, it seems to do a better job with the M9 than either Aperture or C1, and for me, that's what really matters. The printing also looks much improved. It may be a bit slow, but I can live with that.
Godfrey - as far as the interface goes - I'm with Todd here - I think that Aperture is a delight, of course, it's a matter of opinion, and certainly it's vital to know the shortcuts in each version.