Jump to content

passive A mount to FE


Recommended Posts

  • 5 weeks later...

I have recently purchased a sony a7ii to go along with my a77ii and I am eager

to use my sigma 50mm ART but I dont really want to use the bulky sony LEA4

adaptors, are there any decent well build passive units? dont need auto focus really


The LAEA3 is about $150 which is easier to digest than $350 for the 

LAEA4 ... and provides 1/3 stop more light transmission [no SLT beam 

splitter]. All you lose is AF for vintage [shaft drive AF] lenses, and you 

already said that AF is not a priority.  


The LAEA3 will AF later A-mount lenses but the big deal is that auto iris 

functions :-) and you don't hafta manually dial FL into the camera to get 

the IBIS to agree with the lens :-) plus, rather minor for me, is exif data 

transfer also happens. 


I have sizable collections of AI-Nikkors and Minolta A-mount lenses. I 

was rather happy enuf using the Nikkors on a passive adapter but ever 

since I got an LAEA3 my Nikkors have sat pretty much idle. The non-AF 

functionality of the LAEA3 is well worth the price. Plus the quality of the 

physical aspects, the flanges and latch, is waaaay better than any $15 

adapter. Another 3rd rate aspect of the physical build of a $15 adapter 

is the cobbed up lever action that operates the invisible f/stop control of 

the A-mount lenses. 


If $150 is gonna really hurt, I can understand that. But if you can pretty 

well swing it, you'll find that you very much get your money's worth and 

will be verrrry glad you went the extra mile. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many manual adapters. The best are made by the

German company Novoflex. The adapter you need is named:


NEX/MIN-AF.  Website: https://www.novoflex.com/


I use it myself.


Good luck!


Novoflex stuff is verrry pricey. It's great quality, but with 

such high pricing, you would be better of with the Sony

LAEA3. Instead of a passive adapter. You'll get all the 

original functions of your lenses EXCEPT for lack of a 

shaft drive for ancient Minolta-type A-mount AF lenses.  

And, you'll have an OEM adapter, so one company is

responsible for compatibility ... no more finger-pointing ! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Posts

    • I mostly see posterization artifacts, which are the result of lossy compressed RAW files (or bad jpeg conversion). Unfortunately, the A6400 doesn't offer uncompressed or lossless compressed RAW. The noise might indeed result from the smaller sensor than what you're used to. If you're not shooting at max aperture, you could try shooting at wider aperture and lower ISO. When you're not shooting at max aperture, fullframe versus APS-C shouldn't matter much in terms of ISO-performance combined with depth of field: at the same ISO and aperture value, fullframe offers better noise performance but with a narrower depth of field. This can be offset by choosing a larger aperture and lower ISO on the APS-C camera. If you want a fullframe camera the size of an A6400, try the A7C(ii).
    • ..unfortunately, the lighting was correct. The shot required deeper shadows. The K1 ff didnt have these banding issues [yes, I know the sensor is larger]. The film shots had details in the same light. The sony files, both the jpg and raw, had this banding/noise - with NO retouch or post adjustments [straight out of the camera]. the camera was purchased new a few years ago and I am trying to determine if there is something wrong, or the settings are wrong, or the camera just cant handle this kind of lighting [studio + softbox]. No shadow detail is one thing... banding/noise in the shadows is unacceptable. Does sony have a body this size that is FF ? Im wondering if that would make a difference..  dw
    • The root causes for banding are uneven lighting, incorrect exposure settings, or compression artefacts or certain kinds of artificial lighting, especially LED lights. Also the lens used plays a role, I have noticed it more with my sharpest lenses, looks like they outresolve the sensor when I have a uniform blue sky. There is more than one solution, and ultimately post-processing, but the root cause has to be identified first.
  • Topics

  • Create New...