Hands on with new Mavens (3 Viewers)

[james holdsworth]

I don't have a problem at all with any similarities, although I would never consider Maven anything more than rebranders of Kamakura products.

They are not optics designers or builders - full stop.

* And I would extend this 'scorn' to some of the bigger labels, like Zeiss and the Terra - no doubt almost entirely Kamakura - but, at least, Zeiss did handle the optical design and spec. the glass.

This is just a personal irritant of mine and reminds me of automotive 'companies' that build knock-offs of classic cars and call it something else, or tuners that put wings and turbos on sportcars and rebrand them as a 'new' car.

Some of this goes to what Jan has said for years - this sort of thing is great for the consumer but bad for optics companies that invest heavily in R & D, to bring us the innovations we, and the rest of the bino. world have benefited from. With competitors able to make clones and copies for half the cost of an alpha [as they have zero R&d to pay for], then premium brand companies are forced to go the same route.

As I said, great for the buyers but a bit sad that Zeiss now makes bins in China.....

 

[gcole]

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.
Steve , I am interested in the eye relief of the B3 6x30. When compared to the B3 8x30 ... is much better / Worse ?????

 

[Steve C]

I thought the introduction of a full size 7x was interesting as well. I expected the fov reactions, as I initially had some of those same preconceived ideas about it appearing restricted. That fact that it is not particularly restricted in the presentation of the view did surprise me some.

Aside from the fov, I think I need to repeat some other things that are going on there. I mentioned in my OP that this thing looks a whole lot like you are viewing the world through a porro. The fov in this case does not have the effect(on me anyway in this instance) that it might have had. Assemble the effects of the 7x dof (magnified in my view by the very long focal length) with 3-D of the offset objectives of the Maven B2 and those aspects seem to trump the actual fov. Another thing with the 7x45 Maven is the total lack of a tunnel effect. There is a quite small boundary at the edge of the field, no looking through a tire effect at all. That helps too.

I will note the optics here are top notch.

 

[Steve C]

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.
Steve , I am interested in the eye relief of the B3 6x30. When compared to the B3 8x30 ... is much better / Worse ?????

I spent most of my time with the 7x45. I saw no particular issue with the er of the 6x30, but then again, that rarely seems to be a problem for me, although it is not too uncommon for me to need a little more extension of the eye cups. Further information will have to await a side by side in a review.

 

[gcole]

Thanks

 

[perterra]

I don't have a problem at all with any similarities, although I would never consider Maven anything more than rebranders of Kamakura products.

They are not optics designers or builders - full stop.

* And I would extend this 'scorn' to some of the bigger labels, like Zeiss and the Terra - no doubt almost entirely Kamakura - but, at least, Zeiss did handle the optical design and spec. the glass.

This is just a personal irritant of mine and reminds me of automotive 'companies' that build knock-offs of classic cars and call it something else, or tuners that put wings and turbos on sportcars and rebrand them as a 'new' car.

Some of this goes to what Jan has said for years - this sort of thing is great for the consumer but bad for optics companies that invest heavily in R & D, to bring us the innovations we, and the rest of the bino. world have benefited from. With competitors able to make clones and copies for half the cost of an alpha [as they have zero R&d to pay for], then premium brand companies are forced to go the same route.

As I said, great for the buyers but a bit sad that Zeiss now makes bins in China.....

I understand the feeling, and agree to an extent but it's pretty much all been done before, everybody is borrowing from someone. That Maven is using Kamakura for design doesnt mean Kamakura stole the design from someone else any more than someone using full multi coated glass stole that idea, or every one making porro glasses stole the idea from Ignazio Porro.

Just curious, what is the Maven a clone of?

 

[[email protected]]

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

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

Yes, but we are talking about 7x binoculars which normally have a larger FOV than an 8x. That is why this small FOV of 389 feet on the Maven 7x45 is so surprising to me. The Leica Ultravid Plus 7x42 has a FOV of 420 feet. Now that is more where a 7x should be. The Maven obviously has less expensive ocular lenses with less elements and that is a big reason it is less expensive. Wide field oculars cost more money to manufacture. You get what you pay for.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/519030-USA/Leica_40292_7x42_Ultravid_HD_Binocular.html

 

[[email protected]]

Steve. Does this new Maven 7x45 B2 weigh 33.25 oz:C. when the Zeiss 7x42 FL weighs 26.5 oz. and the Leica 7x42 Ultravid Plus weighs 27 oz. and yet either one kills it on FOV! The Maven 7x45 is almost as heavy as my Swarovision 10x50 and it has a 50mm objective! Sorry, but I don't see the point.:eek!: I think you are trying to sell a "Dead Horse"8-P

 

[henry link]

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.

Steve,

I have a Brunton/Kamkura 80mm ICON spotting scope, bought from Botach last year when Brunton exited the sports optics business. The body looks absolutely identical to the new Maven/Kamakura 80mm scope. I would be very interesting to find out what further development has occurred.

Henry

 

[[email protected]]

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)

"As to the link to Brunton, I dont understand what concerns folks so much about it."

It is because Brunton was never a highly regarded binocular. It was way overpriced for it's performance and never sold well and had poor brand recognition. If Maven simply copied Brunton's optical designs you don't have anything new and innovative. You just have a rebadged Brunton. Kind of like if GM took a Corvair and killed the brand but came out with the exact same Corvair but with a Corvette label on it. Same POS car new name.:-O Brunton's you pretty much had to give them away to sell them and Maven's will be the same. So if you buy Maven's you better plan on keeping them a long time. They will sit in Ebay like a "Dead Goose".:clap:

 

[ceasar]

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

Yes, but we are talking about 7x binoculars which normally have a larger FOV than an 8x. That is why this small FOV of 389 feet on the Maven 7x45 is so surprising to me. The Leica Ultravid Plus 7x42 has a FOV of 420 feet. Now that is more where a 7x should be. The Maven obviously has less expensive ocular lenses with less elements and that is a big reason it is less expensive. Wide field oculars cost more money to manufacture. You get what you pay for.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/519030-USA/Leica_40292_7x42_Ultravid_HD_Binocular.html

Dennis,

The oculars on the 7x45 have 5 groups 6 elements.

http://mavenbuilt.com/optics/

You are forgetting that the 7x45 has a longer Focal Length too and that will have an effect on the FOV. How much I don't know but designing a wide field eye piece for it would not be cheap and since 7x binoculars don't sell very well to start with it doesn't make much sense economically to make one.

This is a 1000 dollar 7x45 binocular with AK prisms that sells for about the same price as one of Swarovski's 8x30 CL Companion special edition binoculars.

The big reason they are less expensive than the Ultravids is because they don't have an expensive magnesium frame and a titanium shaft for the focus wheel--which also explains why they are heavier.

Bob

 

[Steve C]

Steve. Does this new Maven 7x45 B2 weigh 33.25 oz:C. when the Zeiss 7x42 FL weighs 26.5 oz. and the Leica 7x42 Ultravid Plus weighs 27 oz. and yet either one kills it on FOV! The Maven 7x45 is almost as heavy as my Swarovision 10x50 and it has a 50mm objective! Sorry, but I don't see the point.:eek!: I think you are trying to sell a "Dead Horse"8-P

You illustrate the point.
Then you don't get the point. Not to be argumentative, but that seems to happen a lot.

The Maven B2 feels a whole lot lighter than the 10x50 SV EL.

The point is that specs only tell part of the tale.

There is no Brunton copying going on here. Brunton is dead and gone.

I think perterra is right in that Maven's timing with the B2 is fortunate. The Maven line...I think, this is my opinion only...is seeing Kamakura making a statement...The Leizeinikowski crowd is not the only source of alpha quality optics.

Kamakura, somewhere in its early history, made a decision not to make its own branded optics. For whatever reasons, they chose to be an OEM for other companies that were not full stop (as James puts it) makers. I bet they are pretty proud of their abilities and with, the partnership with Maven, they chose to deal with people who they had previous history. The only way to get Kamakura stuff (and I challenge anybody to find certifiable Kamakura junk...as far as I know, Kamakura does not do junk) is to get it from companies like Maven and others who do business with Kamakura for their product.

Now if I need to say this again there is no Brunton copying here. There is development of Kamakura optical design and philosophies, that are being offered to the consumer through their partnership with Maven. No Brunton. Lots of stuff Brunton wanted will never see the light of day would be my bet.

Now one point Dennis did get is that Brunton was never successful. I would point out that nobody knows why that was better than Maven and Kamakura. So no spending lots of $$'s for new bodies etc.

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis,

The oculars on the 7x45 have 5 groups 6 elements.

http://mavenbuilt.com/optics/

You are forgetting that the 7x45 has a longer Focal Length too and that will have an effect on the FOV. How much I don't know but designing a wide field eye piece for it would not be cheap and since 7x binoculars don't sell very well to start with it doesn't make much sense economically to make one.

This is a 1000 dollar 7x45 binocular with AK prisms that sells for about the same price as one of Swarovski's 8x30 CL Companion special edition binoculars.

The big reason they are less expensive than the Ultravids is because they don't have an expensive magnesium frame and a titanium shaft for the focus wheel--which also explains why they are heavier.

Bob

Bob

It is a simple truth that a wide FOV ocular is more expensive to make. Think Nagler in the telescope world. That is a big reason the Maven's are cheaper. The Maven's also do use a Magnesium frame like the Ultravids. Maybe it is a cheaper grade and that is why they are so heavy.:king: With modern ED glass SP prisms transmitting at 99% there is hardly no advantage to an AK prism now days. As quoted by Kabsetz from Holger:

Kabsetz
Thursday 2nd April 2015, 02:13
"Like Holger says, the possible image quality improvements offered by A-K prisms over S-P prisms are very slight even theoretically, in an optimal optical execution. In practice, none of even the very best binocular models by the very best manufacturers are built to tight enough tolerances that the benefits of the A-K prisms would ever be visible, as they would be hidden under spherical aberration, coma, astigmatism and chromatic aberration that the manufacturers allow to remain in the binocular image to varying degrees since they maintain that it does not matter. The only advantage that the A-K prisms have that could be visible in real-life commercially available binoculars under some conditions and to very critical observers is the up to 3% advantage in light throughput, but even that is so minimal that it hardly matters, and would play second fiddle to almost any individual sample variation differences in the actual binoculars being compared."


http://mavenbuilt.com/optics/

 

[perterra]

You illustrate the point.
Then you don't get the point. Not to be argumentative, but that seems to happen a lot.

The Maven B2 feels a whole lot lighter than the 10x50 SV EL.

The point is that specs only tell part of the tale.

There is no Brunton copying going on here. Brunton is dead and gone.

I think perterra is right in that Maven's timing with the B2 is fortunate. The Maven line...I think, this is my opinion only...is seeing Kamakura making a statement...The Leizeinikowski crowd is not the only source of alpha quality optics.

Kamakura, somewhere in its early history, made a decision not to make its own branded optics. For whatever reasons, they chose to be an OEM for other companies that were not full stop (as James puts it) makers. I bet they are pretty proud of their abilities and with, the partnership with Maven, they chose to deal with people who they had previous history. The only way to get Kamakura stuff (and I challenge anybody to find certifiable Kamakura junk...as far as I know, Kamakura does not do junk) is to get it from companies like Maven and others who do business with Kamakura for their product.

Now if I need to say this again there is no Brunton copying here. There is development of Kamakura optical design and philosophies, that are being offered to the consumer through their partnership with Maven. No Brunton. Lots of stuff Brunton wanted will never see the light of day would be my bet.

Now one point Dennis did get is that Brunton was never successful. I would point out that nobody knows why that was better than Maven and Kamakura. So no spending lots of $$'s for new bodies etc.

You really should be using the ignore feature, works great.

 

[ceasar]

Bob

It is a simple truth that a wide FOV ocular is more expensive to make. Think Nagler in the telescope world. That is a big reason the Maven's are cheaper. The Maven's also do use a Magnesium frame like the Ultravids. Maybe it is a cheaper grade and that is why they are so heavy.:king: With modern ED glass SP prisms transmitting at 99% there is hardly no advantage to an AK prism now days. As quoted by Kabsetz from Holger:

Kabsetz
Thursday 2nd April 2015, 02:13
"Like Holger says, the possible image quality improvements offered by A-K prisms over S-P prisms are very slight even theoretically, in an optimal optical execution. In practice, none of even the very best binocular models by the very best manufacturers are built to tight enough tolerances that the benefits of the A-K prisms would ever be visible, as they would be hidden under spherical aberration, coma, astigmatism and chromatic aberration that the manufacturers allow to remain in the binocular image to varying degrees since they maintain that it does not matter. The only advantage that the A-K prisms have that could be visible in real-life commercially available binoculars under some conditions and to very critical observers is the up to 3% advantage in light throughput, but even that is so minimal that it hardly matters, and would play second fiddle to almost any individual sample variation differences in the actual binoculars being compared."


http://mavenbuilt.com/optics/

Dennis,

All that theory by Holger about the AK prisms doesn't apply here for a number of reasons.

At $1000.00 per binocular do you expect Maven to put in SP Prisms that transmit 99%! (By the way-who makes binoculars with SP prisms that transmit at the 99% level?)

Maven wanted to offer a 7x binocular to go with the ones that were made for them by Kamakura.

Where else would you put it?

With the 8x42 and 10x42 B1 series just because they have SP prisms?

They have the same FOV now as the B1 8x42 has. Their light transmission is 93.70% which is 2% brighter than the B1 8x42 with SP prisms. Their mg frame weighs 33.25 ounces so it must have a lot of mg in it. They also have a exit pupils of more than 6mm and ER of 18mm.

Get real on this OK? You get all of the above for around $1000.00 and you are complaining that you want them to have the specs of $2,500.00 binoculars.

Wait till they come out and then see if they are worth $1000.00.

Bob

 

[[email protected]]

Dennis,

All that theory by Holger about the AK prisms doesn't apply here for a number of reasons.

At $1000.00 per binocular do you expect Maven to put in SP Prisms that transmit 99%! (By the way-who makes binoculars with SP prisms that transmit at the 99% level?)

Maven wanted to offer a 7x binocular to go with the ones that were made for them by Kamakura.

Where else would you put it?

With the 8x42 and 10x42 B1 series just because they have SP prisms?

They have the same FOV now as the B1 8x42 has. Their light transmission is 93.70% which is 2% brighter than the B1 8x42 with SP prisms. Their mg frame weighs 33.25 ounces so it must have a lot of mg in it. They also have a exit pupils of more than 6mm and ER of 18mm.

Get real on this OK? You get all of the above for around $1000.00 and you are complaining that you want them to have the specs of $2,500.00 binoculars.

Wait till they come out and then see if they are worth $1000.00.

Bob

It is just that they are being promoted as competing with the alpha's for 1/2 the money. "A GAME CHANGER." Here are some quotes from Steve:

"Well, here we get to the tricky part of the review. I have a 9x to compare with 7, 8, and 10x samples. But the view here demands comparisons. The Maven B2 image is…well…superb. There is no other way to say it. I took the binocular out on the second day I had it to the White Lake unit of the Lower Klamath Wildlife Refuge. There are gazillions of water birds there this time of year. While looking things over, another car pulled into the access point. A guy with an 8x42 Zeiss FL and I struck up a bit of a conversation. He asked what in the world those binoculars were. So we traded off binoculars back and forth for a while. The FL is the ONLY alpha class glass I ever really ever came close to buying. I did not for the simple reason (and this is solely personal) that I did not like the high transmission in concert with the quite cold, even icy cool color balance. For this time of the year, they can be too bright. I quickly concluded that I liked the Maven better than the FL. The neutral color balance is much preferable to my eyes and removes the too bright objection. The Maven has better edge performance. Put the Maven in black armor and a Zeiss logo, and with the AK heritage, I doubt many people would not think the binocular was Zeiss. Heresy…maybe, but that is how it is. Not a Victory (pun intended) for either, just a point for the Maven.
The next day I headed for a local Sporting Goods store who had both a Swarovski EL 10x 42 and a Zeiss Conquest 10x42. While I like the Conquest a lot, it is a step behind the Maven in apparent brightness, and a bit less sharp. I’d spent some time with the Conquest before and was not really surprised. The Conquest being smaller will be preferred by some certainly.
But the Swarovision was the real reason I showed up. I know the owner as I buy a fair amount of stuff there. My version of “support the local brick and mortar family business”. So I told him what I was up to. I left him my card and he agreed to let me take it for a few hours. The image presentation of these two is superb and (for all practical intents and purposes) equal. I was pretty surprised as I figured the SV would be able to show alpha vs second tier improvements. I don’t think I could tell a photo of the image of one from the other. I’ll give the EL SV the edge in eyecup design, and it has a somewhat better edge. This is the reason I don’t think Maven needed to go flat field. If it can compete this well with the SV, there seems no need for the extra cost. There is also the 9x vs 10x and 45 mm vs 42 mm configuration differences. The Maven focuses closer, has a better depth of field, and a bit of extra 3-D. Now, there are certain folks who are going to read this and lose a gasket."

My point is the Maven's are falling short in several areas. They may be worth the $1K but they are definitely not competing at the alpha level with specifications like that. Besting Zeiss FL's and Swarovision's I don't think so.:-O

 

[perterra]

fitting

 

[Gijs van Ginkel]

Bob, post 35,
Dennis is right in that there are some puzzles to be solved around Maven for a clear picture. Nobody is helped by making them holy or discarding them on unfair grounds.
After comparing for example the bodies of the 30 mm Mavens, the Nikon M7 and the 30 mm Kite Lynx binoculars, I am almost 100% certain, that their body structures are the same, so there is little room for exceptional differences in optics. The Maven WEB-site reports 95% transmission for the 8x30 and 10x20 Mavens with SP prisms. We have investigated the Kite Lynx 30 mm binoculars and none of them come close to 95% transmission. Moreover, in the course of the years we have investigated many roof prism binoculars with SP prisms and among them the very top lines and none has a light transmission of 95%. Yes, we found such high light transmissions in Swarovski porro's and in the new Zeiss HT with HT glass. So my question is: how reliable are the data in the Maven WEB-site?
Gijs van Ginkel

 

[A2GG]

The B1 looks just like the Brunton Epoch. Haven't we established that the Maven guys are former
Brunton employees? I thought we already did. So, I'm going to assume at least the B1 is essentially
the old Epoch updated with new glass and coatings. That's OK ...I like that they are offering 6x and 7x and the
customized colors. I wish the guys at Maven the best. I am intrigued by the 6x30 as a 'compact'. The 5mm EP would be good with glasses.

 

[perterra]

Bob, post 35,
Dennis is right in that there are some puzzles to be solved around Maven for a clear picture. Nobody is helped by making them holy or discarding them on unfair grounds.
After comparing for example the bodies of the 30 mm Mavens, the Nikon M7 and the 30 mm Kite Lynx binoculars, I am almost 100% certain, that their body structures are the same, so there is little room for exceptional differences in optics. The Maven WEB-site reports 95% transmission for the 8x30 and 10x20 Mavens with SP prisms. We have investigated the Kite Lynx 30 mm binoculars and none of them come close to 95% transmission. Moreover, in the course of the years we have investigated many roof prism binoculars with SP prisms and among them the very top lines and none has a light transmission of 95%. Yes, we found such high light transmissions in Swarovski porro's and in the new Zeiss HT with HT glass. So my question is: how reliable are the data in the Maven WEB-site?
Gijs van Ginkel

The gist of Steves thread, as I took it was, dont get mired in the data on the spec sheet until you look thru the binocular. Seems simple enough, I have followed Steve both here and optics talk for a number of years, pretty sure thats what he has always said with every brand he has looked thru. And so far, both he and Frank havent lead me astray