I was reading the reviews of the LA-EA5 on Sony.com...

Started 10 months ago | Discussions thread
SQLGuy
OP SQLGuy Forum Pro • Posts: 11,263
Re: I was reading the reviews of the LA-EA5 on Sony.com...

I agree with most of this, but I don't think A mount lenses really hold that much competition to either Sony E or Canon EF lenses for most users.

Ricky 92rt wrote:

Donbont wrote:

If I were an e-mount user with an out of production Sony e-mount camera body I am not sure I would buy an LAE-A5 adapter in order to be able to use A-mount lenses. Where I live the CL market is awash with used e-mount lenses with relatively few A-mount lenses advertised. Given that I rarely if ever see A99/ii bodies in my CL locale I don't know how much market penetration those bodies really had so maybe that helps explain the relative lack of activity for A-mount lens sales on CL.

They A99/99ii not exactly bargain basement cameras, but they are around (A99 is fairly decent numbers). It was IMO Sony's mistake to not have a cheaper FF body for A mount

No shortage of A77 and cheaper bodies around so I imagine they sold quite well

The adapter is mainly aimed at current A Mount users, however there are plenty of people who adapt lenses to E Mount. There are a ton of A mount lenses around used, for some really good prices, so I don't doubt bargain hunters do also pick up A mount lenses. Yes Canon can be adapted easier, however Canon don't have the same price/bang per buck value on some things

There's not much where a Minolta is that much better a deal than a Canon lens. Minolta has the advantage of undesireability, while Canon has the advantage of large production numbers. Both mounts offer plenty of decent lenses for cheap prices for people who don't need the fastest and/or quietist autofocus. You can particularly see this when comparing pricing on used 3rd party lenses that were made in both mounts. The EF versions are usually pretty close in price to the A mount ones.

All the MILC systems are expensive for lenses, the E mount FF kit lens is a weak optic, so anyone doing landscape probably doesn't care much about AF, even if they did there are some nice Minolta lenses that blow the Sony E 28-70mm away optically. That's one example. 90mm SEL Macro expensive, 100mm Sony/Minolta a very good optic and way cheaper even mint used. Don't underestimate the appeal of adapters for many people.

There are plenty of offerings now for good and good value E mount zooms and primes.... unless you want a slower decent zoom. There a Minolta 24-105 or 24-85 doesn't have competition at the price, but for a few more $$$ you can get the Sony 24-105 or Tamron 28-75 and have a better lens, with better AF. I guess new 3rd party primes are also more expensive than old Minolta ones, but, still, a new Sony 28/2 is only twice the price of a good used Minolta 28/2, and the Sony comes with a warranty.

It's about offering a way forward. So when the LAEA5 came out many people were quite excited, it looked to offer an ideal solution (smaller, built in AF motor, no SLT mirror). The reality is disappointing, with such limited support, even if you leave the video AF side out of it, 3 bodies simply isn't enough.

Let us hope in 6 months time that list has grown significantly, if it hasn't then that's going to be a real let down

-- hide signature --

A7R2 with SEL2470Z and a number of adapted lenses (Canon FD, Minolta AF, Canon EF, Leica, Nikon...); A7R converted to IR.

 SQLGuy's gear list:SQLGuy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) Canon EOS-1D Canon EOS 5D Fujifilm FinePix S5 Pro +34 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow