stuartv
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
The WWL is great. I used it on my previous rig - an Oly E-M10 with the kit 14-42 lens. I retired that rig when I got the r4.
I think the WWL gives VERY good image quality. As good or better than big dome options, while still giving you zoom-through flexibility, plus being able to R&R it in the water.
The problem with the r4 and the WWL is that the WWL was only compatible with the 28-f/2. I like shooting WA, but that setup is pretty limiting. Fortunately, you can crop so much with an r4 image that I have still been able to get some decent images of smaller stuff.
I am really looking forward to the flexibility of having the 28-60 and then the WWL to put on/take off during a dive, as needed. I think that with a CMC (1 or 2, haven't decided) added will be my complete rig for the foreseeable future. At least, until I can get an a1... 
I have a buddy that was shooting an a7rIII and an a9, then upgraded to the rIV and the a9 II when they each came out. He does a lot of terrestrial as well as u/w photography. Based on diving with him and shooting together, I kind of feel like strictly for u/w use, the a9 II has no significant advantage. Whereas the high-rez of the r4 CAN be a good advantage, depending on what you're doing.
The ability to shoot for the center and crop is one pretty effective way to eliminate the image corner softness that seems to be inherent to almost all u/w setups. At least, until you step up to using a WACP... (ouch$$$$)
|
I like them all, but #1 and #4 stand out for me. What an absolutely great subject!