Looking forward to hearing your views on the Bonelli. I tried it at Bird Fair too and it's mighty impressive.
Lee
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Par 2: Maven and Swarovski (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Steve C
- Start date
Looking forward to hearing your views on the Bonelli. I tried it at Bird Fair too and it's mighty impressive.
Lee
Ontario
Well-known member
Steve C
Well-known member
After several weeks of trying unsuccessfully to see if I would/could adjust to the rolling ball of the SV EL 10x50, I just posted it for sale on the classifieds.
The Maven B2 continues to be what I consider the single most impressive whole package binocular I have ever used. While its optics may not equal the SV in all respects it frankly surpasses the SV in several areas. The absolute nearly uncompromising optical quality of the B2 and the price you get it for is unbeatable. The Maven B1 is hanging right in there, I may do a report on iot later.
The Maven B2 continues to be what I consider the single most impressive whole package binocular I have ever used. While its optics may not equal the SV in all respects it frankly surpasses the SV in several areas. The absolute nearly uncompromising optical quality of the B2 and the price you get it for is unbeatable. The Maven B1 is hanging right in there, I may do a report on iot later.
chartwell99
Well-known member
Steve is absolutely right on the Maven B2 (mine is the 9 x 45 which arrived today) - first impressions are well beyond my very high expectations. Optically and ergonomically, this is a world class binocular, and I look forward to seeing what it is capable of in varying conditions (weather in Texas is beautiful at the moment but change, usually for the worst, is the name of the game in these parts). More impressions later, but Steve deserves a huge thank you for the recommendation and his spot on reviews. Nothing is ever perfect, however, and unfortunately attaching the supplied strap to the binocular and rainguard was a truly miserable experience, and the final result after 45 frustrating minutes of fierce effort and exertion leaves the rainguard incredibly difficult to use unless the eyecups are all the way down. I can't imagine what the folks at Kamakura were thinking when they over-engineered this mess, but I may have to swallow my gum, cut the miserable thing off and replace with an OpTech strap. Still, looking through the binocular does ease the pain. Anyway, more to come ...
Steve C
Well-known member
Well I'm quite gratified to see you like it. However, I have to wonder about the strap attachment business. Took me maybe five minutes, and I'm typically butterfingers.
I did not keep it on as it is too wide for my liking. I seriously recommend you get a Rick Young harness. Best thing I have used.I always tether the supplied ocular cover/rain guard to the strap attachment on the binocular, never do I attach it to the strap. I never could stand any of the strap attachment of any binocular I have ever used.
FrankD
Well-known member
Just read this and thought it would be appropriate to post on Steve's thread.......
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/250931
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/250931
james holdsworth
Consulting Biologist
Are these guys [Maven] really anything more than middle-men for Kamakura?
It's great that they bring a great product at a good price, but then so do many other companies using Kamakura products as a starting point.
It's great that they bring a great product at a good price, but then so do many other companies using Kamakura products as a starting point.
Steve C
Well-known member
That is akin to saying Kite or Vortex, who sell binoculars they have made for them by Kamakura, are nothing more than middlemen for Kamakura, or for that matter is Zeiss a middleman for Kamakura since the guts of the German assembled Conquest is from Kamakura.
I am not sure what percentage of binoculars are free from the inclusion of some degree of purchased items. Probably the percentage is zero. Zeiss and Swarovski get glass from Shott. Are they middlemen for Shott, or is it the other way around?
So what Maven has to do is establish themselves. First in North America, then who knows where they will go? I think it is a bit demeaning to refer to them (or Kite or Vortex...or whomever) as nothing more than a middleman. The idea for the specifications in the Maven lineup was Maven's, the marketing approach is Maven's, their financial setup is theirs alone. A startup company like Maven can have as much or as little input into what they get from Kamakura as they want to negotiate in their contract. Maven has a substantial level of input into what they get. Some brands and models may have little or no input and simply order a basic stock model in enough volume to make a contract workable.
So I guess the answer to the question of is Maven a Kamakura middleman gets down to individual perspectives of just what a middleman is or is not.
I am not sure what percentage of binoculars are free from the inclusion of some degree of purchased items. Probably the percentage is zero. Zeiss and Swarovski get glass from Shott. Are they middlemen for Shott, or is it the other way around?
So what Maven has to do is establish themselves. First in North America, then who knows where they will go? I think it is a bit demeaning to refer to them (or Kite or Vortex...or whomever) as nothing more than a middleman. The idea for the specifications in the Maven lineup was Maven's, the marketing approach is Maven's, their financial setup is theirs alone. A startup company like Maven can have as much or as little input into what they get from Kamakura as they want to negotiate in their contract. Maven has a substantial level of input into what they get. Some brands and models may have little or no input and simply order a basic stock model in enough volume to make a contract workable.
So I guess the answer to the question of is Maven a Kamakura middleman gets down to individual perspectives of just what a middleman is or is not.
Last edited:
NDhunter
Experienced observer
Steve:
Maven is a very new company and so it is natural that some here are wondering about
that. These designs are interesting and we will see how things go for them.
I have mentioned before, I do not care at all about customization, but rather performance
and value from my optics.
You are a good one to carry the water for Maven, you did the very same for Zenray, and there
was a lot of buzz, and even enough to generate a subforum on Birdforum.
But now things are quiet over there.
A direct marketing plan is hard, I have seen a few articles in some hunting magazines, and
it will take some work.
Jerry
Maven is a very new company and so it is natural that some here are wondering about
that. These designs are interesting and we will see how things go for them.
I have mentioned before, I do not care at all about customization, but rather performance
and value from my optics.
You are a good one to carry the water for Maven, you did the very same for Zenray, and there
was a lot of buzz, and even enough to generate a subforum on Birdforum.
But now things are quiet over there.
A direct marketing plan is hard, I have seen a few articles in some hunting magazines, and
it will take some work.
Jerry
James, the problem I have with a term such as "middleman" is that it implies that you are actually dealing with Kamakura, with Maven/somebody-else acting as a facilitator. If you buy a binocular from Maven/somebody-else, you are not dealing with Kamamura. You're dealing with Maven/somebody-else.
If you need customer support down the line, don't go to Kamakura. Their involvement in this deal was finished long before you even bought your binoculars.
This is what comes to mind when I consider the new flat-field model recently offered by Predator Optics under their Theron label. ZR originally offered a similar model for a little over $600 a few years ago. Leupold followed with their own version slightly under $600, which went through 2 versions, the first of which was discounted to around $400 as a close-out. Now, Predator is offering the most recent version which costs between $425 and $499, depending on whether or not you have a coupon.
So, in a nutshell, this is a model which has variously cost between $400 and $600 over the past few years, depending on the "middleman". Don't get me wrong, these are not exactly the same model. Obviously, the armors are different. Also, I have both the Leupold version (which I bought on close-out) and the ZR version (which I won in one of Charles's Birdforum contests), and I can confirm that the coatings are different. But for me, the important question is, Whose "lifetime" warranty would you rather have backing up your investment? Leupold, who has been around for over a century? Zenray, who has a high profile on this forum but not really anywhere else? Or Predator, who is pretty low-profile by any meaning of the word? I'm not biased against any of these three companies. I own optics from all three. But my point is that the identity of the "middleman" ought to be a key consideration in whether or not you buy.
As this pertains to Maven, it looks like the B3 is available in very similar versions from at least a couple of other companies, Kite (who offers a MIJ version like the Maven) and Nikon (whose version is MIC). The B3 costs $499, the Kite $399, and the Nikon around $349 (depending on the merchant). Differences between the respective versions aside, who would you rather deal with for warranty support? Nikon, which their longstanding reputation, Kite, which their reputation mainly earned in Europe, or Maven, the start-up? No right answers here. Just food for thought.
My personal thoughts on the B2... based on Steve's review, this seems like a terrific instrument. Coming from kamakura, I'm not necessarily surprised - this is well within their capabilities. But, as far as buying it and depending on a start-up to support it for years down the line, I think I might wait and see if a more established "middleman" company (Vortex, Alpen, Opticron for example) decides to offer it. Just my 2 cents.
Peatmoss, thanks for a well balanced post. Are you referring to the Kite Lynx; and what is the Nikon MIC? Perhaps an adjunct to your thoughts is resale -if you plan to sell, it seems that outside of specialty forums such as this one, the more established brand(s) are going to be much easier in the Ebay, or similar marketplace. Personally, for value and performance in 8x30 I am considering Maven, Kite Lynx, and M7. While I like the idea of Maven hand inspecting each piece before shipping, I do wonder about value down the road should I wish to resell.
Inquisitor
Well-known member
I am not Peatmoss but the MIC remark means made in China and is in reference to the Monarch 7.
I have a gray market one that cost me less than $300 that I really like for the money and size. That said, I do often wonder "what if" I had paid more for a B3 or a Lynx.
Thanks for the information, Inquisitor! Some time ago, and I would imagine now, view camera lenses became even more expensive when they were "cherry picked" and tested individually by Linhof for their cameras. A lens with the name "Linhof" engraved on it signified it was the best of that particular line by their standards. In real practice i doubt that many could see the difference, but if you wanted the best, that was the ticket. To me, that same sort of expert hands-on at the Swarovski level, or (hopefully) Maven or Kite level may not make a difference a normal person can see, but it denotes excellence, and I think that's what many of us prefer to seek, and that's one reason for the interest in a mid-priced binocular that offers best of quality for its price and then some. But I am in agreement with you in wondering "what if". Sorry for the extended post.
Steve C
Well-known member
A couple of observations if I may. Relating to the Maven B3, the stated overall light transmission is listed as 95%. While I had some initial doubts about that high of a light transmission level, I do not doubt that it has to be above 90%. It is noticeably brighter in low light than the Theron Wapiti LT 8x32, Leupold Mojave 8x32, and the Monarch M7 8x30. I was able to pry 88% overall out of Leupold, whose Mojave is next brightest. The difference is noticeable. While there are indeed several 8x30 binoculars built on the same chassis, do not assume identical performance, let me repeat...do not assume identical performance .
If your primary concern in a binocular purchase is resale value, as a personal observation only, two things come to mind. First is that you better stick with high end stuff. Second is that if you are concerned with resale, you may well never be satisfied. Resale on anything in the less than $500 US range will likely not be real good, IMO. There are always too many "deals" from various sources on new ones.
Let me add here that of my purchase of all three of the Maven B series models, none were made with resale value as motivation.
My purpose here is only to shine the light on a new brand with what I consider to offer seriously good binoculars at seriously good prices. Like any new company, whether or not Maven sinks, barely stays afloat, or flourishes, is largely dependent on the durability, quality, service, and repair that they can offer in the long run.
.If your primary concern in a binocular purchase is resale value, as a personal observation only, two things come to mind. First is that you better stick with high end stuff. Second is that if you are concerned with resale, you may well never be satisfied. Resale on anything in the less than $500 US range will likely not be real good, IMO. There are always too many "deals" from various sources on new ones.
Let me add here that of my purchase of all three of the Maven B series models, none were made with resale value as motivation.
My purpose here is only to shine the light on a new brand with what I consider to offer seriously good binoculars at seriously good prices. Like any new company, whether or not Maven sinks, barely stays afloat, or flourishes, is largely dependent on the durability, quality, service, and repair that they can offer in the long run.
Last edited:
Thank you for your comments, Steve. No, my primary goal isn't resale, I tend to keep things a long time. I mentioned resale as a musing sort of thought. For me it would have to be what I perceived best of quality for the price, assuming I was comfortable with it. Time will tell, but I'm glad you presented a well balanced and thoughtful posting about this interesting company.
chartwell99
Well-known member
Interestingly, since long term availability of parts and repairs is a legitimate concern, I asked the folks at Maven what would happen if Maven exited the business and I was assured that Kamakura in San Diego would repair the binocular if Maven didn't survive. Having had a chance to use my 9 x 45 B2 in weather conditions ranging from glorious to truly miserable (think South Texas flooding), I am convinced this binocular (and its pricing) is good enough to take the risk.
Steve has done a really excellent job of reviewing the Maven B2 and I'm not sure what I can add other than some unscientific comparisons and subjective observations.
Optics: in a word, stunning. Color fidelity and optical clarity remind me most strongly of the Zeiss Night Owl glasses, interestingly also Abbe Koenig prism binoculars. In all conditions, the view is better than expected. I had the good fortune to follow a red tail hawk diligently circling looking for supper late Friday and experienced no CA, no rolling ball effect and wonderfully generous depth of field.
Ergonomics: I have somewhat mixed feelings about armored binoculars, and, given the choice, would actually prefer the old timey pebble grain faux morocco coverings available on Zeiss and Leitz binoculars in the 1960's to most rubber and thermoplastic armor. The armor on the Maven is excellent, however, closest to, but much better than. the Vortex Stokes DLS models - no thumb indents and great tactile feel. The Stokes armor tended to be a dust magnet which at least so far has not been an issue for the Maven.
Eye relief: I don't wear glasses and have abandoned otherwise excellent binoculars (like the Nikon Superior E) over the years due to black out issues, usually due to too much eye relief. Thankfully, no problems here. In my experience the best comparison for ease of viewing and absence of finicky eye placement issues is the Leica 8 x 42 BA.
Size and weight: This is a deceptively large binocular and noticeably heavy around the neck but balance in the hand is remarkable. I have never been a harness user but I am very close to taking Steve's recommendation on this point.
What would I change; The focuser. I owned a Swarovski 10 x 40 Habicht porro some years back and the stiff focus of the Swaro was nearly identical to the Maven. I am hopeful ease of focus will improve with use. I also wish Maven had used the remarkable variable focus of the Brunton Epoch binoculars.
Bottom line: I am genuinely pleased with this binocular, and very glad to have made the purchase.
Last edited:
Steve C
Well-known member
Chartwell,
I'm glad you brought up the point about Kamakura's willingness to continue repair on Maven binoculars even if Maven does not survive. I had the same conversation with Maven and they told me the same thing. It seems however, I did not mention that anywhere, so thanks for bringing that up.
I also need to retract a statement I made earlier in regard to your last post. I tried the Maven strap attachment thing again with your comments in mind, and it seems you are correct. The wide part of the Maven strap is long enough that yes it does interfere with the ocular guard when used on the strap. It has become such a matter of second nature to me to tether the rain guard directly to the strap attachment lug that this detail went right over my head.
Wile I have adapted to the Maven focus wheel, it would be nice if it was a bit less tight in movement. I put the bug in Maven's ear about offering various grease viscosity for the focus operation in the customization process. It is a possibility, but will be something that, if offered, will be down the road a ways. As it stands, the customization is exterior in nature. Kamakura in San Diego does that work on a bare naked, but otherwise assembled binocular, and it requires no extra work to get into the interior of the binocular. I might add the focus is about the same with both the B1 and the B3 as well. I asked Maven about the variable rate Epoch focuser. After a long and I suppose thoughtful pause, they said that that focuser was what they considered to be the root of all things evil (that particular emphasis is mine, they just don't like it). Kamakura does not like it, it is allegedly an engineering problem of no small nature and caused Brunton and Kamakura more headaches from both manufacturing and service venues than it was deemed to be worth, so that it went away with Brunton and the Epoch. Whether it is dead as a concept or subject to continued development, I don't know. It is too bad, for when they work, they are superb.
Yes the image is indeed stunning. I have ceased even trying to adapt to the non static image of the Swarovision. While I may give appropriate kudos to that glass, it simply is not enough better than the B2 to warrant having a glass of that expense.
As a general comment, I also have come to the conclusion that while the big Swarovision is indeed a superbly balanced instrument, that the Maven's ergonomic superiority is simply staggering. I will reiterate that this is largely a matter of personal taste. I think now, and will continue to think that the Swarovision glass is a legitimate contender for nomination as the best available binocular. Just look close at the B2 before either making the nomination or casting your vote.
I'm glad you brought up the point about Kamakura's willingness to continue repair on Maven binoculars even if Maven does not survive. I had the same conversation with Maven and they told me the same thing. It seems however, I did not mention that anywhere, so thanks for bringing that up.
I also need to retract a statement I made earlier in regard to your last post. I tried the Maven strap attachment thing again with your comments in mind, and it seems you are correct. The wide part of the Maven strap is long enough that yes it does interfere with the ocular guard when used on the strap. It has become such a matter of second nature to me to tether the rain guard directly to the strap attachment lug that this detail went right over my head.
Wile I have adapted to the Maven focus wheel, it would be nice if it was a bit less tight in movement. I put the bug in Maven's ear about offering various grease viscosity for the focus operation in the customization process. It is a possibility, but will be something that, if offered, will be down the road a ways. As it stands, the customization is exterior in nature. Kamakura in San Diego does that work on a bare naked, but otherwise assembled binocular, and it requires no extra work to get into the interior of the binocular. I might add the focus is about the same with both the B1 and the B3 as well. I asked Maven about the variable rate Epoch focuser. After a long and I suppose thoughtful pause, they said that that focuser was what they considered to be the root of all things evil (that particular emphasis is mine, they just don't like it). Kamakura does not like it, it is allegedly an engineering problem of no small nature and caused Brunton and Kamakura more headaches from both manufacturing and service venues than it was deemed to be worth, so that it went away with Brunton and the Epoch. Whether it is dead as a concept or subject to continued development, I don't know. It is too bad, for when they work, they are superb.
Yes the image is indeed stunning. I have ceased even trying to adapt to the non static image of the Swarovision. While I may give appropriate kudos to that glass, it simply is not enough better than the B2 to warrant having a glass of that expense.
As a general comment, I also have come to the conclusion that while the big Swarovision is indeed a superbly balanced instrument, that the Maven's ergonomic superiority is simply staggering. I will reiterate that this is largely a matter of personal taste. I think now, and will continue to think that the Swarovision glass is a legitimate contender for nomination as the best available binocular. Just look close at the B2 before either making the nomination or casting your vote.
Last edited:
BrightEyes
New member
Quick question regarding CA in the B2
Hello all, super newbie here. I've been following as many threads as I can find regarding the Maven b2, but haven't seen a relatively clear answer. Has anyone that is overly sensitive to CA had a chance to check them out?
As I am slowly learning, in no small part due to the information on this site, I seem to be highly sensitive to CA, which is very frustrating, not to mention potentially expensive. For reference, I currently have 3 pairs of brand new binoculars in my possession, none of which I'm 100%happy with.
I started with the Vanguard Endeavor ed. Tons of unwanted color, including a brilliant purple cormorant right smack dab in the center of the view. Next I tried the Endeavor ed ii. Much better, but still a lot of fringing for me, starting around the 8 ring if it was a target. Finally, I have the Zen Ray Prime hd. Lots of light, and the CA is less pronounced (fuzzier), but it occupies a larger percentage of the view. The Prime's are may favorite so far, though.
So I'm looking for other solutions, and I do prefer to just get it over with and spend the money once-ish (no Harbor Freight for me (mostly)). And Steve's review of the B2 makes it sound like just the ticket, but as he says, he's not CA sensitive. So, anyone else?
Off the b2 topic, but definitely related, at least to Chromatic Aberration, I've watched the debate as to whether it degrades the view if you aren't sensitive to it. Many people insist it does, but unless I've missed something (there's a gazillion posts on this site, so...), nobody seems to explain why they think so.
Let me take a stab at it. If, and it's a big if, this isn't my area of expertise, but if CA is caused by the inability of one or more of the lenses/prisms to reconverge all of the colors of the spectrum on to the same plane or point, whether you can see it or not, it would stand to reason that the lack of a portion of the spectrum would be deleterious. You're missing a piece of information, or it's slightly out of cadence.
Or, I may be way off base with my reasoning. I know there a lot of things at play I don't understand. Yet.
Anyway, if anyone has any info on the b2 CA thing, that would be swell. In the meantime, thanks for all the OTHER information, not to mention entertainment ;-)
Hello all, super newbie here. I've been following as many threads as I can find regarding the Maven b2, but haven't seen a relatively clear answer. Has anyone that is overly sensitive to CA had a chance to check them out?
As I am slowly learning, in no small part due to the information on this site, I seem to be highly sensitive to CA, which is very frustrating, not to mention potentially expensive. For reference, I currently have 3 pairs of brand new binoculars in my possession, none of which I'm 100%happy with.
I started with the Vanguard Endeavor ed. Tons of unwanted color, including a brilliant purple cormorant right smack dab in the center of the view. Next I tried the Endeavor ed ii. Much better, but still a lot of fringing for me, starting around the 8 ring if it was a target. Finally, I have the Zen Ray Prime hd. Lots of light, and the CA is less pronounced (fuzzier), but it occupies a larger percentage of the view. The Prime's are may favorite so far, though.
So I'm looking for other solutions, and I do prefer to just get it over with and spend the money once-ish (no Harbor Freight for me (mostly)). And Steve's review of the B2 makes it sound like just the ticket, but as he says, he's not CA sensitive. So, anyone else?
Off the b2 topic, but definitely related, at least to Chromatic Aberration, I've watched the debate as to whether it degrades the view if you aren't sensitive to it. Many people insist it does, but unless I've missed something (there's a gazillion posts on this site, so...), nobody seems to explain why they think so.
Let me take a stab at it. If, and it's a big if, this isn't my area of expertise, but if CA is caused by the inability of one or more of the lenses/prisms to reconverge all of the colors of the spectrum on to the same plane or point, whether you can see it or not, it would stand to reason that the lack of a portion of the spectrum would be deleterious. You're missing a piece of information, or it's slightly out of cadence.
Or, I may be way off base with my reasoning. I know there a lot of things at play I don't understand. Yet.
Anyway, if anyone has any info on the b2 CA thing, that would be swell. In the meantime, thanks for all the OTHER information, not to mention entertainment ;-)
Welcome to the forum.
The CA issue is a bit of a minefield but this is the way I think it works.
The simple single lens of the eye causes chromatic aberration. The depth of the different cones in the retina reduces longitudinal CA but has little effect on the lateral CA we generally comment on. In optical terms our peripheral vision is a mess of CA but are normally unaware of it. The brain has learned to effectively remap the cones to reassemble a CA free view. Much the same thing is done in digital consumer cameras to cancel out the lens CA.
The theory goes that due to differences in the shape of the eyeball the amount of correction the brain makes varies between individuals. It also affects the ability to correct additional CA generated by a binocular.
So CA in a binocular is an optical flaw but a good percentage of users are able to correct, at least small amounts, to 'see' a high definition CA free view, possibly comparable to a CA free optic.
Myself, like others have reported here, appear to be able to switch on or switch off some of the correction. I can find it when I look for it, but can also ignore at least modest levels. The trick is not to look for it. Others appear not so fortunate.
Can't help you with the Maven unfortunately.
I have a Endeavour EDII and a ZenRay Prime and I would describe both as low CA designs. However I would suggest that both are very particular on eye positioning. Straying from the correct ER and a centralised view will induce CA in the view. Once aware of it I find it very easy to correct. I suspect eye position is often just a bit more critical with flat field designs.
David
The CA issue is a bit of a minefield but this is the way I think it works.
The simple single lens of the eye causes chromatic aberration. The depth of the different cones in the retina reduces longitudinal CA but has little effect on the lateral CA we generally comment on. In optical terms our peripheral vision is a mess of CA but are normally unaware of it. The brain has learned to effectively remap the cones to reassemble a CA free view. Much the same thing is done in digital consumer cameras to cancel out the lens CA.
The theory goes that due to differences in the shape of the eyeball the amount of correction the brain makes varies between individuals. It also affects the ability to correct additional CA generated by a binocular.
So CA in a binocular is an optical flaw but a good percentage of users are able to correct, at least small amounts, to 'see' a high definition CA free view, possibly comparable to a CA free optic.
Myself, like others have reported here, appear to be able to switch on or switch off some of the correction. I can find it when I look for it, but can also ignore at least modest levels. The trick is not to look for it. Others appear not so fortunate.
Can't help you with the Maven unfortunately.
I have a Endeavour EDII and a ZenRay Prime and I would describe both as low CA designs. However I would suggest that both are very particular on eye positioning. Straying from the correct ER and a centralised view will induce CA in the view. Once aware of it I find it very easy to correct. I suspect eye position is often just a bit more critical with flat field designs.
David
