Maven B3 8x30 ... (1 Viewer)

[Steve C]

http://www.rokslide.com/2012-01-09-05-09-42/optics/329-maven-b1-10x42-binoculars

There is some discussion and a link in the B2 thread. It is the 10x42.

 

[Steve C]

Steve ... It would be great if you could post a picture of the bag on your Maven B2 9X45 review thread.

Frank ... Does a bag come with the B3 and do you have any photos?

Thanks.

Pics up in the B2 thread.

 

[FrankD]

Steve ... It would be great if you could post a picture of the bag on your Maven B2 9X45 review thread.

Frank ... Does a bag come with the B3 and do you have any photos?

Thanks.

Yes, the B3 comes with the same satin bag. I think it is in the original series of pics I posted in this thread to the right of the box.

 

[brocknroller]

Yes, the B3 comes with the same satin bag. I think it is in the original series of pics I posted in this thread to the right of the box.

I saw that but with the printing all over it, it looked like crumpled plastic packaging material, not a bin case.

 

[BruceH]

Thanks Steve and Frank. I am with Brock on missing that as being a bag in the photo. For the money these sell for, I would prefer a case although that would not be a show stopper if I wanted to buy the binocular. I like the Zeiss FL cases and the ZR Prime case is also nice. The Monarch 7 8X30 which possibly compares to the B3 comes with a basic case.

 

[Steve C]

Thanks Steve and Frank. I am with Brock on missing that as being a bag in the photo. For the money these sell for, I would prefer a case although that would not be a show stopper if I wanted to buy the binocular. I like the Zeiss FL cases and the ZR Prime case is also nice. The Monarch 7 8X30 which possibly compares to the B3 comes with a basic case.

I'll take more binocular and less case 100 times out of 100. If the B2 had a $2,000 tag and came from Germany, nobody would blink at quality vs cost.

Don't know where the B3 fits in that scheme since I have not seen one yet.

 

[ads]

If the B2 had a $2,000 tag and came from Germany, nobody would blink at quality vs cost.

Isn't it heavier than Germany and Austria's offerings?

Interview with Maven Outdoor Equipment Company
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79ak3dfDVTw

 

[FrankD]

Thanks for the video link. Now I can put a face to a name.

 

[brocknroller]

Isn't it heavier than Germany and Austria's offerings?

Interview with Maven Outdoor Equipment Company
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79ak3dfDVTw

Thanks for that link. The cameraman should have had a directional mic and a windscreen, too much background noise. I had to "rewind" in a couple spots.

Yes, the B2 is about 5 oz. heavier than most 42mm alphas. The objectives are slightly larger, though, 45mm. These were made for hunters, not birders. If they are not "stalking," hunters are sitting in a tree stand or hiding behind a blind where they can rest their bins on their knees or in the blind, sit in a chair.

I don't mind heavier bins for stargazing since they rest against my adamantium skull, but for birding, holding heavy bins out in front of me all day can get tiresome as I found out with the Nikon 10x42 HG (35.6 oz.).

The B2 has better ergonomics than the closed bridge HG, which should help counter the weight some, but at this point, I'd rather carry the 16 oz. midsized model --same glass, same optical quality, according to the video. And a wider FOV.

The one thing the B3 doesn't have is a better close focus than the B2: 8.2 ft. vs 4.9 ft. I wonder why they made such a good close focus on the B2, which is made for hunters and is only available in 9x and 11x? You'd think it would be the other way around.

 

[FrankD]

The one thing the B3 doesn't have is a better close focus than the B2: 8.2 ft. vs 4.9 ft. I wonder why they made such a good close focus on the B2, which is made for hunters and is only available in 9x and 11x? You'd think it would be the other way around.

Actually Brock the B3 unit that I have in my possession focuses down to 5.5 feet. Now my eyes always seem to be able to obtain a closer focus than manufacturer's advertised specs (more often than not). 5.5 isn't exceptional but I certainly would consider it average in that regard.

 

[cycleguy]

Frank,

Do you think this would make a good bino for a child??? (about a 60lb one).

I'm ok with putting better quality/pricier optics in her hands.

CG

 

[ads]

Lander, Wyoming (March 27, 2015) - Maven Outdoor Equipment Company, a next-generation gear brand officially announces a strategic partnership with the Crayola Company of Lehigh Valley, Pennsylvania. Concurrent with the announcement, Maven is proud to the herald the launch of increased customization possibilities of its award-winning B-Series optics collection with the immediate availability of sixty-four new customization colors of the Crayola® 64 Palette.

Just kidding.

 

[FrankD]

Cute Ads. I live in the Lehigh Valley.

CG,

I see no reason why it wouldn't be a good choice for a child. The two "child concerns" that usually spring to mind are the size/weight and the IPD. I haven't measured it but the IPD goes down to a very narrow level. Well below what I require and I have narrow-set eyes.

The weight is right around 16 ounces and they are certainly "compact" in the grand scheme of all the binoculars out there. So, yes, I think a child would enjoy using these.

 

[ads]

48 ounces.

(If you scale the weight up for a 60 pound child vs. a 180 pound adult)
180 pounds / 60 pounds * 16 ounces = 48 ounces

As an adult, I find 28 even ounce binoculars to be on the heavy side. Maybe she would be better off with a model quite a bit lighter than 16 ounces.

 

[FrankD]

If that were the case ads then the most widely recommended kids binocular here on the forum, the Yosemite and its clones, would also be out of the question since they weigh the same as the Maven.

A lighter binocular would certainly be nice but then you are also potentially faced with the issue of compacts having a smaller exit pupil making them more critical of eye placement and thus potentially less easy and fun to use.

 

[ads]

If that were the case ads then the most widely recommended kids binocular here on the forum, the Yosemite and its clones, would also be out of the question since they weigh the same as the Maven.

A lighter binocular would certainly be nice but then you are also potentially faced with the issue of compacts having a smaller exit pupil making them more critical of eye placement and thus potentially less easy and fun to use.

Yes, the Leupold Yosemite and Kowa YF 6x30 have a significant larger exit pupil than the Maven, weigh about the same, and cost 1/5 as much.

Some lighter options include:
Pentax Papilio 6.5x21 - 10 ounces
Opticron Traveller BGA Mg 6x32 - 13 ounces
Vortex Diamondback 8x28 - 14 ounces

Everyone has preferences regarding weight/performance. It seems the Nikon Monarch 7 8x30 is a popular model here. A small child may have significantly different preferences. I don't presume to know what children prefer.

 

[cycleguy]

48 ounces.

(If you scale the weight up for a 60 pound child vs. a 180 pound adult)
180 pounds / 60 pounds * 16 ounces = 48 ounces

As an adult, I find 28 even ounce binoculars to be on the heavy side. Maybe she would be better off with a model quite a bit lighter than 16 ounces.

It would get used by the child and myself... sometimes getting passed back and forth between the two of us, other times just by the child, and other times just by me. So, not specifically a kid's only binocular.

CG

 

[FrankD]

I had a chance to compare the Maven to the original Swaro EL and the Sightron this morning. Will post comments later.

 

[FrankD]

As mentioned I had the opportunity to spend a good deal of time yesterday morning comparing the Maven to the Swarosvki 8x32 EL. One of the gentleman that I bird with has a pair of the Swaros and we birded a local lake together. This is the original EL and not the SV and this particular unit was purchased a year or two after it was initially introduced.

To cut to the chase, I thought the Maven offered a notably better optical experience in several areas.

1. The apparent brightness appeared better in the Maven. This could be because of light transmission but I also believe it was the result of number 2....

2. The color "bias" of the Maven is almost entirely neutral. In some lighting conditions I get a hint of "warmth" in the red/yellow area but not necessarily in general use. The Swaro appeared more green/yellow in comparison.

3. I could detect no practical difference in the true and apparent field of view. The Maven has a listed 430 foot field of view versus the listed 420 of the Swaro. Both had that "immersive" experience as a result of this coupled with their sufficient level of eye relief and relatively large oculars, in relation to the width of eyecup.

4. Contrast and apparent sharpness appeared better in the Maven. Notably better. When looking at a variety of fixed objects around the lake I was able to pick out finer detail with the Maven.

5. CA control was better in the Maven...as it should be since it utilizes ED glass in the objective design.

The gentleman that I was birding with, John, was very impressed with the Maven. He couldn't see that much of a difference between the Swaro and the Maven optically. He was more impressed with how light and compact it was in comparison to the Swaro. I will add a couple of pics to this post and in subsequent posts to show the three bin comparison and also the environment we were comparing them in.

 

[FrankD]

Panorama of the lake