Viscount Omega

Yep.  I can almost hear them discussing it in a meeting. 
"What about Takumi's work on the LA-EA4's implementation?"
"I'm glad you brought that up.  I have an idea to boost our e-mount inventory sales."
🤑 💵
There are about 400 A-Mount zooms and primes from different companies out there that are affected by this.
It feels like a slap in the face from Sony.

I don't know if this has been mentioned elsewhere but if you have some vintage A-Mount lenses (Minolta, etc..) and you plan to shoot stills or video with the A7S III, the auto-focus will not work anymore with the LA-EA4 adapter.   It seems Sony disabled it.   And the new LA-EA5 can only do stills--not video.  This forces customers to buy e-mount lenses if they want auto-focus with their video.  

I don't know if this has been mentioned elsewhere but if you have some vintage A-Mount lenses (Minolta, etc..) and you plan to shoot stills or video with the A7S III, the auto-focus will not work anymore with the LA-EA4 adapter.   It seems Sony disabled it.   And the new LA-EA5 can only do stills--not video.  This forces customers to buy e-mount lenses if they want auto-focus with their video.  

I'm sorry Andrew but I'm going to have to report you to the authorities.  Your article is misleading in that it features a young, attractive Caucasian woman that does not fully reflect the diversity of Manchester. 
You should know better.  Be more inclusive next time.
Get the Manchester Experience.
Live it.  Learn it.  Love it.
https://www.manchester.ac.uk/study/experience/

"The other adapter I will be trying in the full review is the Sony A mount range, both for full frame Alpha glass – of which there are some rather nice ones, indeed some of my favourite of all time, and the superbly cinematic Minolta AF range."
I also think they have a distinctly cinematic quality.
It's nice to hear I'm not the only one who thinks that.  Ya know, when you mention the word "Minolta" some cinematographers are like, "What are you crazy?" 
Fuck them.  LOL.
 

"The other adapter I will be trying in the full review is the Sony A mount range, both for full frame Alpha glass – of which there are some rather nice ones, indeed some of my favourite of all time, and the superbly cinematic Minolta AF range."
I also think they have a distinctly cinematic quality.
It's nice to hear I'm not the only one who thinks that.  Ya know, when you mention the word "Minolta" some cinematographers are like, "What are you crazy?" 
Fuck them.  LOL.
 

Well, anyone could chime in, I don't care.   I'm looking for a rebuttal or counter-argument against this explanation.  (I didn't write it, btw. It's from a DP in another forum).  Here, I'll copy/paste it again:
"Say you shot with a 24mm APS-C at f/4 and 36mm full-frame at f/6.3 both focused at 10 feet. The lenses / formats would produce a very similar horizontal and vertical field of view. The depth of field would also be very similar. Would these images be nearly identical? What would account for any differences?"

"The perspective will not be the same. The angles may match but your relationship (the cameras relationship) to the angle will not be the same. That is to say, if you picture a wedge representing your field of view, in the full-frame scenario you will be further inside of the wedge than in the APS-C format. In the APS-C format you will be closer to the 'point' of the wedge. Therefore the sense of peripheral vision will not be the same. Some would argue that this is why full-frame looks more natural or realistic than APS-C."
 

Can we just wish it into the cornfield?  LOL.  (Twilight Zone reference)

I think people use the terms "full-frame sensor" and "full-frame lens" and "full-frame look" and "APS-C lens/look" and "APS-C sensor" etc. interchangeably because sometimes you can't use one without the other.  Strictly speaking, the sensor is just the method of capture.  I don't think it has anything to do with the "look", per se.