Since folks are suggesting to convert to DNG, or don't shoot in RAW, etc. let me make a different recommendation. Use LR.
I really wanted to like Ap, but this was one thing that scared me. OS-level RAW converter that requires an OS update. I appreciate what they are thinking, but it's just too cumbersome, and shows that photog support is #2 in their mind behind hw and platform concerns. Love my Mac, but I felt LR was a better bet. This is a key business for Adobe -- not for Apple.
I could process LX3 RAW in LR no sweat (sorry -- no experience w/sRAW, so couldn't comment on LR support of the same).
"Converting" to DNG is different than converting to JPEG or TIFF. DNG simply standardizes all the sensor-specific stuff in a .cr2 or .nef file into an open-standards raw format file.
BTW, Lightroom, the Camera Raw plug-in for Photoshop and Adobe Camera Raw and their DNG Converter all have their own "wrappers" around the same Adobe code to convert individual camera's raw files into something Ps, PsE and Lr can digest. And Aperture can read DNG files natively.
As far as Apple support goes, once a camera has raw support in OS X then it'll always have support (for Aperture, iPhoto, etc.) When this gets to be an issue is generally when a new camera is released -- and Adobe struggles to get this functional sometimes just like Apple does. I'll admit that Apple needs to step up to the plate when it comes to supporting Canon's sRAW format; esp. since Canon doesn't attempt to encrypt or obfuscate that data like some of their competition (cough, Nikon, cough, cough, Panny LX3, cough!) so it shouldn't be that hard.
That said, I think I'm becoming a Lr convert strictly from a usability standpoint. There is a bit of a learning curve, but nothing like Ps, and after spending some time in Lr I really get the feeling that Adobe finally listened to *photographers*. Lr is clearly a tool for us and not some generic tool masquarading as an image organizer but built for multiple purposes (I'm lookin' at
you Adobe Bridge!)