• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Hands on with new Mavens (1 Viewer)

Steve C

Well-known member
I finally got a chance to meet my Maven contacts personally this weekend at the Central Oregon Sportsman's in Redmond, Oregon.

They had their new $2,100 spotters as well as the new B2 7x45 and B3 6x30. The binoculars retain the $1,000 and $500 price tags as their older siblings.

I know many here will be interested in the new 7x45 B2, as full size 7x binoculars are sort of rare. There have been a couple of posts about them, with some expressed disappointment in the stated 389' fov. I must admit I was hopeful they would have had a wider fov, as well as many here. However seeing is believing and don't believe it unless you see it. Even after you see it, verify it. Looked at another way, people often make a very grave mistake of judgement based on the spec sheet. I confess to having done the latter with regard to the 7x45 B2. Open mouth...insert foot ;). The view looks...and most importantly...FEELS a LOT wider than one would expect for 389'. I confess to falling into the trap of...well the thing is only about 52* afov...and it is going to be too blasted narrow. Now I admit to pretty well having checked this off. I think it is no particular secret that selling a full size 7x (or for that matter any size 7x) binocular is going to be no easy task.

So, the thing to do will seem to many...make the fov as wide as you can. Well, maybe not. Let's look at some other 7x glasses to broaden this out a bit. The Zeiss FL had a 450' fov. It was also noted for having poor edge performance. The ZEN ED 2 7x36 has a wider 483' fov fo true wide field afov. But many have complained about what they perceive as poor edge performance. Other alpha class 7x glass has a 420' listed fov, see the Leica and Nikon offerings. If memory serves me correctly, that was also the case with the discontinued Swarovski SLC 7x42. So those are only about a half degree wider than the new Maven. I have not seen either a Leica Ultravid or Nikon EDG in the 7x42 configuration, so I can't personally comment on edge performance, although I'd expect the Nikon to perform pretty much as an edge sharp instrument. So widening the fov, particularly the afov of lower power binoculars becomes (or can become) an engineering problem. A potentially expensive engineering problem, which many may well chose not to wish to pay for. So I took the 7x45 outside for a closer look. I had not verified the 389' fov spec, which proves to be the correct one, by the way. I also had the new 8.3* 6x30 B3.

There are three things that immediately jumped out at me with this big 7x. First it (as I noted above) both looks and feels wider than 389'. It is obviously apparent that the view is much wider than a couple of 7x50 7.5* porro binoculars I have. I feels at least as wide as a couple of 420' (8*) fov 7x 35's I have as well. The second thing is that the 7x has a LOT better edge performance than even some alleged sharp to the edge models to be had from other brands. Note there is no claim made by Maven that this is binocular uses field flatteners. So the sweet spot is all but equal to the entire fov. The third thing is the 3-D effect from the wider spacing of the AK prism setup of this Maven model. Actually, now that I think about this, there is a fourth thing that adds into the total image presentation, that is dof. I assume it is pretty well understood here that dof increases with decrease in magnification. So the effect of the view is initially one that feels like you are looking through a porro glass. What deficit the size of the fov may ultimately have is not what you see at first glance. I figured I had to have been misled by improper website info. I went back and checked and Brendon confirmed it is indeed 389'. So some of this is from memory and all of this is only first impressions. I have a 7x45 on the way for review. I will check out how well the first impression holds up. But I would say I have seen enough to caution everyone who reads this to NOT fall into the spec sheet death trap like I nearly did.

The B3 6x30 is essentially nothing more than a 6x version of the 8x30 I have. If you are interested in a compact roof with excellent optics, then this needs a look. I also have one of these coming for review.

The spotters are of the 25-60x80 iterations, with both straight and angled configurations. The thing that stands out is their compact size. Looking at them sitting on the Manfrotto tripods, I thought they had to be 65 mm glass. They are sharper than two brand new tacks too. Not much else to say about them as I spent most of my limited time with the binoculars.

Speaking of binoculars, they have a new 15x56, which does have my interest, as well as a review specimen in the works. Look for this mid to late summer.
 
Last edited:
What [or who] is the original maker of the 7x45? Is there an existing model under a different brand name with the same specs?

This is a Kamakura glass, just like the other B2 models. It is made with Abbe Koening prisms. The only other full size AK prism binoculars that come immediately to mind are from Zeiss and Optolyth. So as far as I know...NO there are no other look alikes, clones, knock offs, whatever. No this is not a knock off, clone, look alike of anything else either. The degree of offset of the objectives seems to me to be wider than any of the Zeiss or Optolyth offerings. Being an in house development from Kamakura it is unlikely to have a direct AK specific formula counterpart. For whatever reasons SP roof prisms seem to rule the roof prism world. Maybe every other SP prism is ultimately to be considered a knock off of another SP design? I have no opinion on this.
 
As Henry alluded, these look remarkably similar to the discontinued Brunton Epochs. Steve, do you know if the Mavens are based on Brunton designs?
 
Henry and James, and Everybody else....

Maven is here, Kamakura is still here, Brunton as an optics entity is dead and gone. There was a reason for that (probably more than one). The Maven guys left Brunton several years before Brunton shut its optics unit down. There was probably a reason for that. Brunton probably (maybe) had few friends left at Kamakura at the end. There is probably a reason for that. There is probably a reason for lots of things, but one of the high jumping conclusions about Maven being a Brunton clone or Brunton lives on as Maven is a leap in the wrong direction...just trust me here OK? Whatever association the owners of Maven had there is long gone. Brunton was not overly successful as an optics entity. Why would anyone seek to emulate that?

One of the things you will not find...for instance...is the aluminium mirrored prisms Brunton insisted on...right up to their optical end.

There is a lot of conjecture about what is or is not the same or similar related to what the observers see as a physical similarity. The Swarovski CL, Nikon Monarch 7, Zeiss Terra, Maven B3, Kite Lynx, some Opticron models all look similar because of using (maybe using) the same basic housing. That is a dead end street as far as I am concerned.

Brunton never got the Icon line off of the line before biting the dust. If there is some features there that warranted further development, fine. Just don't go looking for the ghost of Brunton here. Brunton's designs were/are Kamakura's designs. IMO, Brunton likely did not have enough sense to listen to what Kamakura tried to tell them.
 
Last edited:
I still use a Zeiss 7x42 Victory FL. It has AK prisms and a 450'@1000yd FOV. It does have astigmatic edges far out in the view but I have to look for it to notice it. It has a huge clear sweet spot otherwise.

The earlier Zeiss 7x45 Night Owl had the same specs but I never used one. Jerry Liguori wrote that he did use his for 14 years in watching raptors. I suspect that both of these discontinued Zeiss 7x42/45 must have used differently designed oculars to get their wide view than the 7x45 Maven does.

I also have a Swarovski 7x42 SLC B and a Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN both of which have 420'@1000yard FOVs and SP prisms. They aren't flat field but both have very good edges and huge sweet spots.

Additionally, when new, these cost more than the Mavens do.

Bob
 
Last edited:
I still use a Zeiss 7x42 Victory FL. It has AK prisms and a 450'@1000yd FOV. It does have astigmatic edges far out in the view but I have to look for it to notice it. It has a huge clear sweet spot otherwise.

The earlier Zeiss 7x45 Night Owl had the same specs but I never used one. Jerry Liguori wrote that he did use his for 14 years in watching raptors. I suspect that both of these discontinued Zeiss 7x42/45 must have used differently designed oculars to get their wide view than the 7x45 Maven does.

I also have a Swarovski 7x42 SLC B and a Leica 7x42 Trinovid BN both of which have 420'@1000yard FOVs and SP prisms. They aren't flat field but both have very good edges and huge sweet spots.

Additionally, when new, these cost more than the Mavens do.

Bob
I agree with Ceasar in that there are many excellent 7x42 binoculars on the market with a much bigger FOV than the Maven 7x45 B2. I find 389' very restrictive for a modern 7x binocular. I have tried the Zeiss 7x42 FL and the sweet spot is so huge you don't even notice the edges also the Swarovski 7x42 SLC I tried had an enormous sweet spot with excellent edges. I would be inclined to not even try the Maven with that anemic of a FOV. The trend now as exemplified by the Zeiss SF is bigger FOV's not smaller. I also agree with Henry and James in that a lot of those Maven's look like Brunton clones. They are just too close in design to not be.
 
Last edited:
389 would be much too restrictive. I tried some UV HDs and even thought the view through those was more restrictive than the view through the FL.
 
I agree with Ceasar in that there are many excellent 7x42 binoculars on the market with a much bigger FOV than the Maven 7x45 B2. I find 389' very restrictive for a modern 7x binocular. I have tried the Zeiss 7x42 FL and the sweet spot is so huge you don't even notice the edges also the Swarovski 7x42 SLC I tried had an enormous sweet spot with excellent edges. I would be inclined to not even try the Maven with that anemic of a FOV. The trend now as exemplified by the Zeiss SF is bigger FOV's not smaller. I also agree with Henry and James in that a lot of those Maven's look like Brunton clones. They are just too close in design to not be.

Dennis,

I wouldn't go so far as to say that there are many excellent 7x42 binoculars on the market. Unfortunately, there are only 2 and they are very expensive and cost considerably more than the Maven. More than twice as much if I am not mistaken. They are the Nikon 7x42 EDG II and the Leica 7x42 Ultravid HD Plus. Both have FOVs of 420'@1000yds.

I also have an old, inexpensive, discontinued Leupold 7x42 Cascade with the same FOV as the Maven and it is a very usable binocular. (I like 7x42s:king:)

I think it is good that Maven has brought out a 7x45 in the $1000.00 price range. They have very large (6mm plus) exit pupils too and should give easy eye placement.

Incidentally 389'@1000yds is the FOV of the Leica 8x42 Ultravid HD Plus.

Bob
 
Last edited:
389 would be much too restrictive. I tried some UV HDs and even thought the view through those was more restrictive than the view through the FL.

Premature death by spec sheet. Exactly what I was talking about. Exactly what I thought I'd find. Exactly what I did not find. ;) Will that fov suit everybody? No it won't. But it looks wider than it is. A lot of binoculars are just the opposite. Would I like it a bit wider? Probably. But I'll come to judgement when I get to the point where I can write a review. That will take the time it takes.
 
Last edited:
)

I think it is good that Maven has brought out a 7x45 in the $1000.00 price range.

Incidentally 389'@1000yds is the FOV of the Leica 8x42 Ultravid HD Plus.

Bob

The B2 series is possessed of superlative optics. Certainly at the level of the FL. The field performance is likely superior, but that will have to wait for the review.

I agree this is a good thing. I fear the death by spec sheet will doom it out of the gate.
 
the question to ask is does it have to cost twice as much as the Maven to get the wide field of view.....if it is possible to produce a 7x42 with the field of view of the higher end bin why isn't somebody [Maven] doing it???....if it cant be done for less than the higher end bins then I guess the 389 is the best that can be achived in the Mavens price range.....?..in that case we have to live with the narrow fov or save a little longer...or max out the plastic...:smoke:
 
Last edited:
Premature death by spec sheet. Exactly what I was talking about. Exactly what I thought I'd find. Exactly what I did not find. ;) Will that fov suit everybody? No it won't. But it looks wider than it is. A lot of binoculars are just the opposite. Would I like it a bit wider? Probably. But I'll come to judgement when I get to the point where I can write a review. That will take the time it takes.

I'm not really one for perfect edge clarity. I'd rather have the excess FoV than the sharpness. Different qualities for different folks, nothing wrong with that I think. Between CA control and FoV, the Zeiss will be hard to beat to my eyes.
 
Last edited:
I'm not really one for perfect edge clarity. I'd rather have the excess FoV than the sharpness. Different qualities for different folks, nothing wrong with that I think. Between CA control and FoV, the Zeiss will be hard to beat to my eyes.
In my experience with the 9x45 B2 and the Zeiss FL, the FL is no better at all than the B2 with CA. The B2 handles glare demonstrably better. The point is look before you judge here. This is an anticipated stance and many people will not like it and brush it off. A mistake I think. I doubt I will be the only one who thinks it is wider than the spec sheet says it is.
 
the question to ask is does it have to cost twice as much as the Maven to get the wide field of view.....if it is possible to produce a 7x42 with the field of view of the higher end bin why isn't somebody [Maven] doing it???....if it cant be done for less than the higher end bins then I guess the 389 is the best that can be achived in the Mavens price range.....?..in that case we have to live with the narrow fov or save a little longer...or max out the plastic...:smoke:[/QUOTE



I don't think that 389'@1000yds is really narrow. The now discontinued iconic flat field Nikon 8x32 SE has a FOV of 394'@1000 yards and no one ever complained that it was too narrow. I'm happy using my Leica 8x42 Ultravid Blackline which has a FOV of 389'@1000yds and it doesn't seem restrictive at all and as I noted above I also use a Zeiss 7x42 Victory FL which has a 450'FOV@1000yds. Eye relief is adequate for me with both of them. And I have had no glare problems with either of them.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Meh, I used the 7x42 Leupold Hawthorne for a bit and found its view restrictive - it has a nearly identical FoV.
CA is very personal and the only rival I've found to the FL was the Kowa Genesis ymmv.
Others such as yourself will be just fine with that FoV but for me it is an instant issue and not something I'd be willing to look past for even perfect optics.

JE
 
Sig Sauer offers 9x45 and 11x45 binoculars with Abbe-Koenig prisms under their Zulu-9 line. No guarantee that these are the same Kama products sold through Maven, but the specs look similar.

http://www.sigoptics.com/product/zulu9/

Additionally, Styrka offers a 15x56 binocular with Abbe-Koenig prisms under their S-9 line. No idea who makes these. Looks like Abbe-Koenig is making a comeback, for those who are interested.

http://styrkastrong.com/products-binocularsS9
 
Dear all,
It is quite interesting that Maven introduces a 7x45, since 7x binoculars have become less abundant than a few decades ago. I recently investigated some new old ones in comparison with the new 7c42 Leica Ultravid HD-plus (published on the WEB-site of House of Outdoor), so it is interesting to see that a new one is arriving.
Considering the specifications from the Maven WEB-site the optics could very well be related to the optical construction of the Kite Ibis 7x42, which is in the same price range as the Maven 7x45, however the Maves have AK prisms and the Kites SP prisms.
Specifications of the
Kite Ibis 7x42: weight 729 g, close focus 1,6 m, FOV 122m/1000m, light transmission 92% at 550 nm,
eyerelief 19,5 mm
Maven 7x45: weight 942 g, close focus 2m, FOV 130 m/1000m, light transmission 93,7%, eye relief 18 mm
Meopta Meostar B1 7x42: weight 890 g, close focus 3 m, FOV 137m/1000,, light transmission ???(not given and we did not measure it yet), eyerelief 21,8 mm.
So consumers have something to choose still despite the decrease in 7x42's.
Gijs van Ginkel
 
Interesting to see what you think of them after keeping them for awhile. To me they sound like a good glass.

As to the link to Brunton, I dont understand what concerns folks so much about it. Seems rather simple since there are so many binocs out there that resemble each other with different performance levels. And the link is understandable as well, Brunton trimmed their offerings along with their employees. Those ex-employees have contacts within Kamakura, they have contacts within the outdoors industry and see a niche, the ex-employees know what feed back Brunton got, they know where improvements are hiding from Kamakura contacts.

Kamakura has a basic design with out a home, Maven has marketing knowledge and an obvious enthusiasm to get going on a product line. I suspect it was a match made in heaven.

If you say they are worth a hard look, I believe ya. Specs dont mean that much to me. If I was in the market for a pair of upper tier, it would be dumb not to look at them. (Fortunately for me, I'm happy with the Conquest HD)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top