Sony LA-EA5 Adapter $250 October

QuietOC wrote: Sony had consistency issues with both mounts for a while. I think they have mostly solved that now. At least some of the E OSS lenses are better than DT lenses in my experience: 18-55, 1.8/50.

I agree the 1.8/50FE is a nice lens, though whether it is any better in IQ than the APS-C DT 50 I don't know. I'd certainly say my 18-55 DT SAM II is better than the E mount version I have, particularly in close-up performance.
I notice changing the in-lens motor from A-mount to E seems to improve AF speed, but lose magnification. I'm assuming this was a deliberate choice to enhance AF speed. Maybe that is a compromise worth doing for many togs, but not me. I don't care much about AF speed so long as the lens doesn't spend ages going to the wrong end of the AF range or dithering about unable to find the right spot. I know in theory CDAF on E should be more accurate that PDAF on A-mount, but I often find the A-mount more reliable in getting to somewhere near the right place.

QuietOC wrote: Anthony, I was referring to the APS-C E 50mm F1.8 OSS. That is a very nice lens especially since it has optical stabilization.

I agree! Lovely lens, underrated imho.

I sometimes find movie projection to be almost painful to watch. I am not sure why. I did learn recently that they strobe film more than once per frame, but I doubt any film was involved when it has bothered me.

I bought two 55" 4k HDR QLED VA LCD TVs recently after never really owning a TV. 3840 × 2160 is rather low resolution for that size. The Samsung QN90A is an amazing display. One of the first things we watched was the Green Knight, and the ability for it to show realistic warm sun beams and dark interiors with detail at the same time. The other one is a TCL Google TV with only an 8-bit panel. It is only neat in the fact that it can be used as desktop Android PC. My desktop monitors are so out of date.

I don't know if Sony's HEIF format on the A7IV supports HDR10. sRGB is dead.

Edited by QuietOC - 17 February 2022 at 21:44

I am not even sure about the APS-C 35mm F1.8 primes. I kinda feel bad I only tried one copy of the OSS prime. The DT SAM prime is not that good and certainly varied in my experience. There are more reliable manual APS-C primes coming from China.

The 55-210 OSS didn't hold up badly to the DT 55-200 SAM in my experience.

The complication of the OSS mechanisms and linear AF motors means more opportunities for misalignment than the much simpler DT SAM lenses.

Edited by QuietOC - 17 February 2022 at 22:49

Allthough the disussion on the merits of different lenses might be interesting it's off-topic regarding this thread, which is supposed to deal with the merits and drawbacks of the LA-EA5.

So let's get things back "on topic"



Obviously starting a different thread where the recent discussion in this thread is on-topic is fully OK

I think there are two reasons why the discussion cannot be concluded.
No one has succeeded in quantitatively evaluating AF performance. It is unlikely that anyone will succeed in the near future.
The other is the difference in camera/lens performance. This should be discussed separately from LA-EA5, but it is confused.

In my personal experience, the 99II was much more comfortable than the 7RIII + LA-EA4. 7RIV + LA-EA5 has advantages and disadvantages. 7RIV was advantageous in face and pupil recognition. The combination with 1 was overwhelming, so I sold the 99II and 7RIV (and 9) and replaced them with 1 and GM lenses.

In fact, LA-EA5 has one major drawback when migrating from A-Mount. It doesn't recognize TC.

Recent mirrorless cameras can perform image plane phase difference AF even with F22 (contrast AF is possible if it is higher than that).
F6.3 is usually the AF limit for single-lens reflex cameras, and F8 is the AF limit for recent high-end models.
With the higher sensitivity of the sensor, you don't have to worry about the shutter speed even with a small aperture, and there is also image stabilization. In other words, with a mirrorless camera, you can use a much smaller aperture and more compact lens. Actually, I use ILCE-1 + 200600G + 2xTC, 1200mm by hand. No need for a monopod.

However, A-Mount does not benefit from this. For example, you should be able to AF even if you attach 2xTC to 70400. In fact, 200600G + 2xTC (F13), which does not require LA-EA5, can be AF. However, LA-EA5 and TC cannot be used at the same time. Since it is treated as without a lens, it cannot be stopped down.
If you have 300 / 2.8, you would be very dissatisfied with not being able to use TC.

(There is a loophole that some 3rd Party TCs are not recognized as TCs, but of course there is no guarantee.)

Miranda F wrote: Is what you say about LA-EA5 and TC only true for the Sony TCs? I think these tell the camera they are fitted, whereas other makes just modify the data passed to the camera (or sometimes don't ) I de-chipped a 1.4x TC a long time ago. The non-Sony TCs do have an advantage this way, though Iv'e not tried them with LA-EA5.

I only have genuine TCs, so I've only seen other people write about TCs made by 3rd Party.

*** Below is my guess. ***

In Minolta's implementation, it seems that both the lens and TC chips are read out and the camera calculates and creates lens data.
The LA-EA5 (or E-Mount camera) does not have this feature.
It seems that there are 3rd Party products that have the same method as the genuine ones and those that TC gives out information after mounting instead of the lens and hides the existence of TC. However, it seems that this information cannot be created correctly depending on the combination.