New cameras produce raw files that are not backwards compatible with older raw file formats. These raw files are key to the highest quality and flexibility in editing.

Would a file converter not solve this issue? Or do the new formats embed extra kinds of data (extra channels, etc) that are just impossible to represent in the old formats?

In theory, although camera raw formats tend to be more or less undocumented/proprietary, and the people with the resources to create tools that support them tend to be commercial enterprises (mainly Adobe and few minor ones) that are interested in getting you to use their latest thing (not going to work on your decade-old macOS, sorry).

And professional photographers tend to be largely nontechnical people who aren't keen on tinkering with some conversion workflow, possibly including ImageMagick or other Linux-native tools of questionable compatibility with the file formats (and again, on decade-old macOS) going just so they can do their work.

There are file converters. At least one big name company - probably Adobe - offered a free tool. I stopped using Adobe after LR went subscription, so can't remember the specifics.

You can still use Adobe DNG Converter. I use it to convert new raw files for Lightroom 4.

That's the one, thanks. I have a Mac mini just for Aperture and LR5, will see if this can revive that system.

Problem is that the latest macs are just so fast that it makes it hard to switch back.

Me too. Mini has gone from main dev machine, to backup, to kids, and now to Lightroom. It wasn't a slouch BITD, 6 core and 32G ram. It's a bit slow now, but not that bad even on the 4k screen. But it's the best thing I have that runs 32 bit MacOs.

So cool that you’ve put this together. As a big car nut my whole life, I’ve always wanted something like this.

A possible commercial application is: evaluating shopping mall customers demographic by parking lot. Real estate market shifts (possible hypothesis is vehicles values go up before commercial or residential property values). At which point, you would need to include used cars in the database.

Second, I realize make and model are the best indicators, but as interested in vehicle design and history, is there anything about the innate design or shape that looks “expensive” or looks “modern”/current. Are there patterns here that without knowing the badge? Related, do the new BMW’s look any more expensive than a Genesis if you didn’t know it was a BMW? If there was a way to remove model/make from the model, what would it say as brands that look more expensive than they are and vice versa? Which brands’ design language looks old?