Why did Sony move to FE lenses?

I am interested why Sony dumped their reasonably extensive range of Alpha A mount lenses and moved to FE lenses ( which has such a sparse range ) ; especially when they had such a great sensor like the one in the A7R.

I Know most Canon users deride Sony lenses but the G and Zeiss lens were IMO bery good. OK they lacked the robust build of the Canon great whites but optically were every bit as good.

I appreciate, that the new smaller bodies probably wouldn't have accomodated the A mount lenses. But if I were them I would have changed them to fit A mount, even if it meant they were a little bit bigger.

With such a fabulous sensor just seems darft - as they had a fair way to go to catch up with Canon or Nikons extensive ranges,

Boy am I glad I moved from the SLT-A77 - had I stayed I would have felt toally abandoned down a cul de sac!

But Imam fascinated is there any technical advantage at all to moving to FE lenses?

They're still releasing A-mount lenses, so they haven't abandoned the mount.....yet.

That said, Sony doesn't really have the brand equity to take on Canon and Nikon in the DSLR realm. For business reasons, it makes more sense to focus on mirrorless cameras, and as such, FE mount lenses, as Canon and Nikon's resistence to the mirrorless cameras has given Sony the opportunity to establish an early head-start in the uncontested market for high end mirrorless cameras.

As such, at some point when the market does shift away from DSLR's and to mirrorless camera (and it will shift), Sony will have solidified its position as a market leader in this space.

mystik610 wrote in post #17496558
They're still releasing A-mount lenses, so they haven't abandoned the mount.....yet.

That said, Sony doesn't really have the brand equity to take on Canon and Nikon in the DSLR realm. For business reasons, it makes more sense to focus on mirrorless cameras, and as such, FE mount lenses, as Canon and Nikon's resistence to the mirrorless cameras has given Sony the opportunity to establish an early head-start in the uncontested market for high end mirrorless cameras.

As such, at some point when the market does shift away from DSLR's and to mirrorless camera (and it will shift), Sony will have solidified its position as a market leader in this space.

Hmmm sort of agree with the target market, but why dump the lenses, when my SLTA -77 had no mirror? And worked with the A mount lenses. Then instead of building an A mount adapter, I would have built a really hi quality Canon adapter! That would have forced Canon to abandon everything except the hight end DSLRs!
Who in their right mind would have even looked at an M series. Or a 70D or even a Rebel! Against a A7R?
Hell I personally wouldnt bother with a 5DSR if I could use my Canon lenses with a A7R and hi quality Sony adapter!

Submariner wrote in post #17496713
Hmmm sort of agree with the target market, but why dump the lenses, when my SLTA -77 had no mirror? And worked with the A mount lenses. Then instead of building an A mount adapter, I would have built a really hi quality Canon adapter! That would have forced Canon to abandon everything except the hight end DSLRs!
Who in their right mind would have even looked at an M series. Or a 70D or even a Rebel! Against a A7R?
Hell I personally wouldnt bother with a 5DSR if I could use my Canon lenses with a A7R and hi quality Sony adapter!

In this case, Sony would contribute to Canon's bottom line by making people buy more Canon glass. As opposed to making them buy good but rather pricey Sony's FE glass. So Canon "may" sell fewer midrange bodies, will still sell cr@ploads of Rebels (most people buying them don't want to mess with adapters and typically don't get any extra lenses on top of the two-lens kit), will still sell a good amount of high end bodies, and thanks to Sony will sell tons more of their lenses. While Sony may sell more bodies but at the same time may as well kiss their own lens line goodbye.

What they did actually makes sense - they have a definite lead in mirrorless FF, so they put all of their effort into expanding their mirrorless FF offerings, bodies and lenses. This way people will buy Sony body and 3-4 Sony lenses as opposed to Sony body, one Sony adapter, and a bunch of Canon lenses.

I just wish they wouldn't abandon APS-C.

Amamba wrote in post #17496731
In this case, Sony would contribute to Canon's bottom line by making people buy more Canon glass. As opposed to making them buy good but rather pricey Sony's FE glass. So Canon "may" sell fewer midrange bodies, will still sell cr@ploads of Rebels (most people buying them don't want to mess with adapters and typically don't get any extra lenses on top of the two-lens kit), will still sell a good amount of high end bodies, and thanks to Sony will sell tons more of their lenses. While Sony may sell more bodies but at the same time may as well kiss their own lens line goodbye.

What they did actually makes sense - they have a definite lead in mirrorless FF, so they put all of their effort into expanding their mirrorless FF offerings, bodies and lenses. This way people will buy Sony body and 3-4 Sony lenses as opposed to Sony body, one Sony adapter, and a bunch of Canon lenses.

I just wish they wouldn't abandon APS-C.

Some very good points, but if they kept the A mount with mirror less, then if I didnt have Canon lenses I would be Sony lenses if they were A mount, and they have a reasonable range in the A mount system.

Submariner wrote in post #17497149
Some very good points, but if they kept the A mount with mirror less, then if I didnt have Canon lenses I would be Sony lenses if they were A mount, and they have a reasonable range in the A mount system.

But then they would be stuck with A-mount flange distance, making lenses unnecessarily large. E-mount flange distance is 18mm, A-mount is 44.5 that's 26.5mm difference - over an inch of extra length built into the mount design. And obviously they should try to make mirrorless lenses as compact as possible.

Also by redesigning the optics from scratch they actually come out with better glass.

I am unlikely to buy any FE lenses or bodies anytime soon, but to me Sony strategy in FE lenses does make perfect sense. As I said, I just wish they would continue improving their E-lens lineup. If it wasn't for cheap yet high quality Sigma primes, E-mount would be in a much worse shape.

Amamba wrote in post #17496731
In this case, Sony would contribute to Canon's bottom line by making people buy more Canon glass. As opposed to making them buy good but rather pricey Sony's FE glass. So Canon "may" sell fewer midrange bodies, will still sell cr@ploads of Rebels (most people buying them don't want to mess with adapters and typically don't get any extra lenses on top of the two-lens kit), will still sell a good amount of high end bodies, and thanks to Sony will sell tons more of their lenses. While Sony may sell more bodies but at the same time may as well kiss their own lens line goodbye.

What they did actually makes sense - they have a definite lead in mirrorless FF, so they put all of their effort into expanding their mirrorless FF offerings, bodies and lenses. This way people will buy Sony body and 3-4 Sony lenses as opposed to Sony body, one Sony adapter, and a bunch of Canon lenses.

I just wish they wouldn't abandon APS-C.

Yup, totally agree with this way of looking at it--Sony would have no interest in furthering Canon's bottom line. Sony wants you buying their glass. Canon would be more than happy if you only bought their lenses--that's where the real profit is at anyhow (at least it would be logical to assume so).

To touch on another point, Canon and Nikon definitely have a stranglehold on the DSLR market. It makes NO sense for Sony to strive to be #3 in the DSLR market, when they have a real shot at being #1 in the ever-expanding mirrorless segment. Sony has a real market resonator in the a7 series of bodies. I'm honestly surprised they didn't implement their FE strategy sooner.

Submariner wrote in post #17497149
Some very good points, but if they kept the A mount with mirror less, then if I didnt have Canon lenses I would be Sony lenses if they were A mount, and they have a reasonable range in the A mount system.

While there would be some benefit to leveraging the existing a-mount system for their mirrorless offerings, an a mount mirrorless camera would be physically larger, and as such, would do little to differentiate itself from the DSLR's that Canon and Nikon dominate. For now, size is what sets of mirrorless cameras apart from DSLR's, and it made more sense to build upon the existing E-mount, vs the larger a-mount.

That said the Sony A-Mount adapter, which has a dedicated mirror and phase detect AF system built into the mount itself, is a very good solution for those who have invested heavily in the a-mount, as you don't have the AF degradation that you get by mounting lenses from other manufacturers. In that regard, I don't think Sony screwed their a-mount users at all.

I don't think it would have ever made sense for Sony to make a Canon adapter themselves, as they would prefer to sell you their lenses instead of allowing to use another manufacturers. Plus unlike the open source sony mounts, the Canon mount is technically proprietary. Canon probably turns a blind eye to people like metabones and even Sigma....not sure if a big company, and a direct competitor, like Sony would get the same treatment.

Well thanks for the insight.
I must say I find it mind blowing as an ex Sony SLT A 77 owner - bloody glad I moved to Canon.
My past experience of having Sony hi end audio ( back from the early 90s when they built world class amplifiers), thier trend of moving on to new stuff, and abandoning the user base scared me. I have their last great AV receiver, and am terrified the remote would break; as they never hold stock for parts for more than about 3 years.

I liked the camera but would have been gutted if I'd kept it to find my full frame lenses would not fit the new super sensor. Personally I think they could have competed with Canon any day, especially as video became more important.

To fragment an already small lens lineup with E, EF, DT and A mounts just for the sake of size seems counter prdiuctive.
How much weight do you actually save say on a A7R with a decent A mount lense and an adapter.? Personally I find the extra size of a grip on a 5D3 actually makes it easier to manhandle a big lens .... And if I had the money the 1D series would be in my bag in a heartbeat.

Imagine if instead of selling Nikon the D800 sensor they had built the A100 with that sensor, and by now had the A101 with the A7R sensor and beefed up the AF and perfected the video side ( TBH when I got my 7D after A77 I genuinely thought it was broken! . Quite frankly when I upgraded to the 5D3 boy would I have looked at going back to Sony. All that effort on E and EF lenses could have brought the A mount series up toman acceptable standard. Sure nowhere near as comprehensive as Canon but then just how many lenses can you really afford!
The G lens I had was optically great - true not L series build quality but superb for the money. And this new sensor technology is a deal breaker.
By now they would be about to launch the A102 with a 50MPS sensor. And personallly I would imagine it would be a shed load better than the 5DS.

Its just a shame that the marketing and business Directors at Sony are so bloody far behind their technicians. Er probably why they continually post losses of billions of $'s.

Just my take on it. And I am sure I will be shot down in flames, but look at the finances!

Like mentioned above, the FE mount allows to design smaller lenses. Also, I think the shorter flange distance makes it easier to design high quality yet compact lenses, especially wide angle lenses. I had no interest in Sony and their A-mount - Canon was perfectly fine for a "big" DSLR system. But now that Sony is ramping up their FE lineup, I tried it out and I'm thrilled. I just got the A7ii and the 55/1.8 and 28/2 lenses and I can't believe what images come out this little kit. I think this is the future, and Sony made the right move.

I feel like SONY is in fact slowly.. painfully letting A mount die.
When Sony bought up Minolta, Minolta still had a large installed base. In fact it was back when there were still people shooting film Minolta bodies no less (2006)

One of the first things SONY did was drop a pile of the Minolta Lens line up.. shame.

Things were so dogy that for a time companies like SIGMA stopped making certain optics in that same mount they had been dutifully making for Minolta owners for years..

Despite some very nice early innovations in there DSLR line up, it took Sony many years to really start putting cameras out there that competed with Canon and Nikon in any way. It was all compacts that kept them going. It wasn't until the marriage of SONY sensors in Nikon bodes that DSLR shooters started to notice what SONY had been up to.

I have no idea if or when SONY will ever be a force to be reckoned with for DSLR,. I sort of feel like they missed that opportunity by letting the Minolta range down so quickly.