Recsea Nauticam or ACQUAPAZZA for RX-100

[Interceptor121]

Is that a big risk when using bayonette-mounted lenses?


---------- Post added January 8th, 2014 at 08:20 PM ----------

How valuable is the electric bulkhead on the Nauticam?

1. The port design is just not good. Bayonet would need to click in. You also need to consider the cost of the new port as this is optional. There is a price difference of $75 between the acquapazza and the Nauticam, and $50 between the recsea and nauticam. For me this is a no brainer in USA

2. For most users this is not something they would do as the nauticam part is around $130-150 and the dual electrical connector is $199. However once you do that the RX100 is similar to an SLR in terms of recycle time between shots even at wide angle. Nice to have a future proof set up in case you never to SLR

 

[JDelage]

To fit a bayonet-type lens on the Nauticam housing, you would use the same accessory - do I understand correctly? The only difference is that the adapter would fit on top of the port (as opposed to in lieu of the port for the Acquapazza), and therefore there would be no risk of flooding when removing a lens?

 

[Interceptor121]

No acquapazza have a special part that replaces the port
Nauticam uses an adapter they make themselves or one from fix
It is removable so you can go back to m67 thread as you wish

 

[JDelage]

I understand. I wonder why Acquapazza chose this solution. Maybe to reduce weight in the 28LD configuration.

 

[Interceptor121]

I understand. I wonder why Acquapazza chose this solution. Maybe to reduce weight in the 28LD configuration.

Nauticam port is also removable and attached with oring and Allen screws however nauticam didn't go and create their bespoke port
I think acquapazza wanted to retain the adapter business for them but should have designed the port better
The LD adapter is 20 grams negative in water no big deal there