Sony LA-EA5 Adapter $250 October

gigo wrote: 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.

I haven't seen a third-party teleconverter that emulated a first-party one so far. The third-party ones either just past all the electrical connections straight through, or add chip(s) that modify the focal length, aperture, and motor drive.

Chipped Kenko Tele Plus teleconverters work on the Sony LA-EA adapters. The DGX and (some of?) the Pro 300 ones allow working AF with SSM/SAM lenses.

Just bought A6600 after my A77ii died. Mainly had a suite of Minolta lenses, including 50/100mm macro, 35-105 old style, 80-200 f2.8, and the sony 16-50 f2.8.

The main thing for me with the LA-EA5 is that I can gradually replace these lenses over time - I simply can't afford all their replacements at once. So, with the camera, I bought the Sigma 18-50 to replace the 16-50 (although I'm not sure it's quite as good to be honest - but perfectly fine for a walkaround lens). And over the next 5 years or so, I may be able to get a native e-mount macro, and then maybe a telephoto or a wider angle prime. But the adapter gives me all the flexibility I need at present. It doesn't add much weight or size to the A6600, the body and adapter are still slightly smaller than the A77ii.

So, treat it as a transition tool - rather than a direct comparison. I guess that's how Sony see it.

Howard_S wrote: All this is why I find the in-camera Clear Image Digital Zoom an effective alternative. Main drawback is shooting JPG only. Main advantage is cost (£0.00). Here's an enthusiastic article about it at B&H Photo, https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/sony-clear-image-zoom-the-most-amazing-shooting-mode-you-never-heard.

Also, you are off the topic of LA-EA5.

There is no reason why you shouldn't use optical zoom with cropping or super-resolution. Both, not either.

I like to use 1 in APS-C mode. Equivalent to 1800mm in FE200600 + 2xTC + APS-C mode. This is the size that the moon fills the screen and is the limit that I can handle.
You can also add super-resolution processing with software such as LightRoom.

Bird photographers say that 600mm is the standard lens. 1800mm is only a medium telephoto lens.

All this is why I find the in-camera Clear Image Digital Zoom an effective alternative. Main drawback is shooting JPG only. Main advantage is cost (£0.00).

Here's an enthusiastic article about it at B&H Photo, https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/sony-clear-image-zoom-the-most-amazing-shooting-mode-you-never-heard.

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.

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.)

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