Maven B3 8x30 ... (1 Viewer)

[cycleguy]

Ads,

Good start... now a full review??

CG

 

[FrankD]

...and the camera I used for all my pictures does have exposure control.

 

[ads]

...and the camera I used for all my pictures does have exposure control.

What camera are you using? I had assumed you were using an iPhone 5s for all the photos.

 

[FrankD]

Yes and IOS 8 incorporated manual exposure control into the standard camera app....not to mention a few other camera apps I have on the phone also incorporate exposure control.

 

[ads]

It's good that Apple made that functionality available in iOS 8. I did some searching, and there's an iOS app named "Manual" ($1.99) that allows control of:
• Shutter speed
• ISO
• White Balance
• Focus
• Exposure Compensation

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/manual-custom-exposure-camera/id917146276?mt=8

If you are taking comparison photos to show differences in CA, it's best to set everything manually.

 

[FrankD]

I wanted to add to this thread with some continued observations recently. This past weekend I attended the Cape May Bird Observatory Annual Optics Sale. While there I had the opportunity to compare the Maven B3 8x30 with several other binoculars of the same or similar configuration. Those other binoculars included the following....

- Nikon Monarch 7 8x30
- Leica Ultravid HD 8x32
- Swarovski CL 8x30
- Opticron Verano 8x32
- Zeiss Terra ED 8x32

These binoculars cover a wide range of price points but they were what was on hand that I had the opportunity to compare the Mavens to. I apologize ahead of time for not having the time to really go through every optical and mechanical characteristic for each binocular and in comparison to all of the others. What I would like to do is point out the issues that jumped out at me (good or bad) with each model and then brief comparison comments in relation to the Maven.

The two I feel most compelled to comment on are the Nikon and the Swarovski but for different reasons. The Nikon because it is the most similar overall to the Maven in terms of specs, housing, etc... The pictures at the bottom of this post will easily point that out. There can be no doubt that they are based off the same design. There are some subtle differences though. Physically the one that should jump out from the pics are the eyecups. The Nikon's are thinner/narrower than the Mavens. I don't really have a preference one way or the other.

Optical performance is practically identical with two exceptions. For one I seem to be very susceptable to noticing color biases in binoculars. I certainly could pick it out when comparing two binoculars side by side in rapid succession. In comparison to most models the Maven has a fairly neutral color representation. Some folks have suggested a warm bias based on some of the pics I posted. Under certain conditions I have received that impression as well. However, in comparison to some binoculars, the Nikon being one of them, the color bias looked decidedly cooler. The Nikon appeared more of a warmer "reddish" in comparison to a blue-green tone in the Maven.

The second issue is that I noticed a bit of reflection "around the field of view" in the Nikon. I only noticed it occasionally and when I went to look for it I had to force my eyes to see it so I wouldn't call it "major" and could possibly be related to internal coatings concerns. Since it was so sporadic I don't feel it would discourage me as a consumer.

In practically every other way the two binoculars were alike optically.

I mentioned the Swarovski CL comparison simply because I was eager to do it after reading Dennis's commments of the comparison. Before commenting further I will say that my comparison was done in full daylight...a bright, sunny day actually. I did not compare them in low light situations.

The short of it was I preferred the Maven for a couple of reasons. One, the image seemed to be brighter and have better contrast. CA was also more well controlled in the Maven. The latter was not something unexpected considering the CL does not use ED glass in its design. The field of view differences were not immediately apparent. I could see the difference under more extended use though.

I found the Terra ED 8x32 interesting. It offers a nice, bright, sharp image in the center of the field of view. The overall image respresentation was very "relaxing". I did find the apparent sweet spot to be fairly small in comparison to any of the other models but more than likely "average" in the grand scheme of things. I did notice what seemed to a decidely yellow/amber cast to the image...very subtle but definitely there. CA seemed to be well controlled within the sweet spot.

A size comparison between these four models yielded a very similar feel in terms of their "foot print".

The Opticron Verano was a bit larger physically than the previously mentioned models. Optically I found it better in the areas of color representation and size of sweet spot. Color bias appeared entirely neutral or possibly "white" for lack of a better term...without being washed out. The sweet spot size is very large with only mild field curvature approaching the edge of the field of view.

The Leica Ultravid HD had a similarly sized sweet spot as the Verano, meaning it was larger than the Maven. Colors appeared well saturated in the Leica and neutral as well. Apparent sharpness between the Leica and Maven appeared equal to my eyes. CA was equally well controlled in both models.

All I can think of mentioning for now.

 

[typo]

Frank,

Thanks for taking the to report the comparisons. Very useful!

You didn't mention sharpness/effective resolution differences Did you see any? Given that list I'd have thought there might have been quite a range of performance, though I suppose it's not easy to know how representative any sample is.

Cheers,

David

 

[FrankD]

David,

I know you are particularly sensitive to sharpness/effective resolution. I wish I could offer a definitive answer to your questions. Truth is that I felt all of them had what I would call an "acceptable level" of apparent sharpness. To clarify that, my experience tells me that there is a certain level of detail that our eyes/brain accepts as comparable to what we see without the use of binoculars. If a binocular, or spotting scope, is able to represent that level of performance to our eyes then it is acceptable. Of course there also is the discussion of the term "apparent sharpness". My experience, again, is that it represents a combination of actual resolution, contrast and light transmission.

I didn't notice any objectionable levels of apparent sharpness with any of these binoculars. I was focusing more on other concerns though I am sure I would have noticed something if the apparent sharpness was "off" with one model or another. In one sense I guess that says a lot about how well many of the mid-priced models now compare with the more expensive glass. Other optical performance areas such as color bias, sweet spot size and field of view varied much more so I felt the need to commment on those specifically.

 

[[email protected]]

I wanted to add to this thread with some continued observations recently. This past weekend I attended the Cape May Bird Observatory Annual Optics Sale. While there I had the opportunity to compare the Maven B3 8x30 with several other binoculars of the same or similar configuration. Those other binoculars included the following....

- Nikon Monarch 7 8x30
- Leica Ultravid HD 8x32
- Swarovski CL 8x30
- Opticron Verano 8x32
- Zeiss Terra ED 8x32

These binoculars cover a wide range of price points but they were what was on hand that I had the opportunity to compare the Mavens to. I apologize ahead of time for not having the time to really go through every optical and mechanical characteristic for each binocular and in comparison to all of the others. What I would like to do is point out the issues that jumped out at me (good or bad) with each model and then brief comparison comments in relation to the Maven.

The two I feel most compelled to comment on are the Nikon and the Swarovski but for different reasons. The Nikon because it is the most similar overall to the Maven in terms of specs, housing, etc... The pictures at the bottom of this post will easily point that out. There can be no doubt that they are based off the same design. There are some subtle differences though. Physically the one that should jump out from the pics are the eyecups. The Nikon's are thinner/narrower than the Mavens. I don't really have a preference one way or the other.

Optical performance is practically identical with two exceptions. For one I seem to be very susceptable to noticing color biases in binoculars. I certainly could pick it out when comparing two binoculars side by side in rapid succession. In comparison to most models the Maven has a fairly neutral color representation. Some folks have suggested a warm bias based on some of the pics I posted. Under certain conditions I have received that impression as well. However, in comparison to some binoculars, the Nikon being one of them, the color bias looked decidedly cooler. The Nikon appeared more of a warmer "reddish" in comparison to a blue-green tone in the Maven.

The second issue is that I noticed a bit of reflection "around the field of view" in the Nikon. I only noticed it occasionally and when I went to look for it I had to force my eyes to see it so I wouldn't call it "major" and could possibly be related to internal coatings concerns. Since it was so sporadic I don't feel it would discourage me as a consumer.

In practically every other way the two binoculars were alike optically.

I mentioned the Swarovski CL comparison simply because I was eager to do it after reading Dennis's commments of the comparison. Before commenting further I will say that my comparison was done in full daylight...a bright, sunny day actually. I did not compare them in low light situations.

The short of it was I preferred the Maven for a couple of reasons. One, the image seemed to be brighter and have better contrast. CA was also more well controlled in the Maven. The latter was not something unexpected considering the CL does not use ED glass in its design. The field of view differences were not immediately apparent. I could see the difference under more extended use though.

I found the Terra ED 8x32 interesting. It offers a nice, bright, sharp image in the center of the field of view. The overall image respresentation was very "relaxing". I did find the apparent sweet spot to be fairly small in comparison to any of the other models but more than likely "average" in the grand scheme of things. I did notice what seemed to a decidely yellow/amber cast to the image...very subtle but definitely there. CA seemed to be well controlled within the sweet spot.

A size comparison between these four models yielded a very similar feel in terms of their "foot print".

The Opticron Verano was a bit larger physically than the previously mentioned models. Optically I found it better in the areas of color representation and size of sweet spot. Color bias appeared entirely neutral or possibly "white" for lack of a better term...without being washed out. The sweet spot size is very large with only mild field curvature approaching the edge of the field of view.

The Leica Ultravid HD had a similarly sized sweet spot as the Verano, meaning it was larger than the Maven. Colors appeared well saturated in the Leica and neutral as well. Apparent sharpness between the Leica and Maven appeared equal to my eyes. CA was equally well controlled in both models.

All I can think of mentioning for now.

I think all Nikon's have that warm reddish bias. I guess the Nikon M7's 8x30 would be a better bargain than the Maven's 8x30 then if they are identical optically and the Nikon's are $200.00 less expensive.

 

[typo]

David,

I know you are particularly sensitive to sharpness/effective resolution. I wish I could offer a definitive answer to your questions. Truth is that I felt all of them had what I would call an "acceptable level" of apparent sharpness. To clarify that, my experience tells me that there is a certain level of detail that our eyes/brain accepts as comparable to what we see without the use of binoculars. If a binocular, or spotting scope, is able to represent that level of performance to our eyes then it is acceptable. Of course there also is the discussion of the term "apparent sharpness". My experience, again, is that it represents a combination of actual resolution, contrast and light transmission.

I didn't notice any objectionable levels of apparent sharpness with any of these binoculars. I was focusing more on other concerns though I am sure I would have noticed something if the apparent sharpness was "off" with one model or another. In one sense I guess that says a lot about how well many of the mid-priced models now compare with the more expensive glass. Other optical performance areas such as color bias, sweet spot size and field of view varied much more so I felt the need to commment on those specifically.

Frank,

Thanks anyway, the light isn't always conducive to spotting these variations. As you say I might be more sensitive to effective resolution differences than some but I'm most certainly not alone in finding the Swarovski CL 8x30 for example very disappointing. There have been a lot of comments to that effect on the forum and elsewhere since it was launched. The M7 8x30 I thought was better, and the Kite Lynx perhaps better still so I'm interested in how the Maven as a newer Kamakura build stacks up.

Cheers,

David

 

[FrankD]

David,

I didn't find the Swarovski particularly bad in apparent sharpness. What I did find less than expected was its contrast/light transmission level. The image was not as bright or as contrast-filled as the others in the list above. Considering it was the most expensive of the group that should be surprising.

 

[cnick6]

I found the Terra ED 8x32 interesting. It offers a nice, bright, sharp image in the center of the field of view. The overall image respresentation was very "relaxing". I did find the apparent sweet spot to be fairly small in comparison to any of the other models but more than likely "average" in the grand scheme of things. I did notice what seemed to a decidely yellow/amber cast to the image...very subtle but definitely there. CA seemed to be well controlled within the sweet spot.

Frank,

Regarding a few questions and comments:

1. Were you comparing the binoculars by hand or were they supported by a tripod/stand?

2. You and Bob both mention the small sweet spot in the Terra ED 8x32 -- but strangely, I'm not seeing that. (See my comment below for further explanation.)

3. Could the Terra ED's yellow/amber cast be a reflection of light (i.e. from another light source?) The Terra ED models have always seemed "bright" to me -- versus leaning toward any one color. I totally agree with your assessment of the Terra ED 8x32 being very relaxing. To me, the Terra ED is probably the single best feel right next to my Razor HD 12x50 -- where it just fits the face perfectly without any stress.

Regarding #1 and #2 --

I was talking with David regarding perceived resolution and one thing that really surprised me was my viewing experience when holding the binoculars by hand versus being supported.

I set up a support with a USAF 1951 resolution chart at about ~11m (36ft) and it was amazing to see:

1. how sharp each binocular can be when held perfectly still
2. how the focus system (main and right ocular) can be calibrated (near perfect)
3. how the lack of vibration seems to "settle" down the perceived light transmission
4. how to verify the sweet spot accuracy

I compared my current optical instruments and it was striking to see the differences from this perspective. I've always perceived my Leica Monovid to be edge-to-edge sharp but when it was supported the truth was revealed. (Its sweet spot is still ~80-90% but there was definitely a slight fall-off after that.)

I also had the Terra ED 8x32 and while I knew it was edge-to-edge sharp it seems to have different levels of when moving to the edge. I believe this may be due to its high field curvature. I still found the sweet spot to be pretty good for this level of binocular. I would say ~60-70% but that changes very rapidly when moving to the edge. I wonder if (when holding by hand) if the FC can really affect its perceived sweet spot?

The Vanguard Endeavor ED II's are quite impressive when supported; however, I was able to notice subtle differences between the 32mm and 42mm objectives. There was very, very little field curvature in the ED II's.

Anyway, I just wanted to jump in and offer a suggestion to anyone comparing binoculars directly to use a support system if at all possible.

 

[FrankD]

cnick,

All comparisons were done handheld, either sitting or standing out on a deck. Keep in mind that my comments were simply "general impressions".

I certainly think that high field curvature could affect the perception of sweet spot size.

I didn't think the yellow-ish color cast was readily apparent upon initial usage. I only noticed it after comparing it with the Maven, Nikon and Swarovski models. I almost always attribute color biases to the choice of coatings chosen by the manufacturer.

 

[kkokkolis]

I originally wanted the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32, but since I was lucky enough to get it in 8x42 I thought I might try now something different. So, after all that fuss I think I'll go for a Maven B3.

First question: What about this color scheme in the pic bellow?

Second question (asked many times but undecided yet, sorry if you are getting bored): 8x30 or 10x30?Generally but also specially for Maven, which one is the best?

I have Pentax Papilio 6.5x21, Pentax Porro 8x30, Zeiss Terra ED 8x42, Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42, Canon IS 12x36 and Canon IS 18x50, so no good quality 10x.

I intend to EDC that little one, paired with my Papilio I already EDC. The Zeiss and Canons will be carried on birding, astronomy and other opportunities. I use the 3mm exit pupil of the Pentax/ Canon without any problem.

Thank you.

 

[Alexis Powell]

...First question: What about this color scheme in the pic bellow?

Second question (asked many times but undecided yet, sorry if you are getting bored): 8x30 or 10x30?...

I have Pentax Papilio 6.5x21, Pentax Porro 8x30, Zeiss Terra ED 8x42, Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42, Canon IS 12x36 and Canon IS 18x50, so no good quality 10x...

For birding, I would think an all black scheme (i.e. no silver) would be best.

I'd go with 8x30 to keep viewing comfort high. Who needs a 20% larger image at the cost of DOF, FOV, and brightness?

Given that you already have the IS models, I wouldn't add a 10x to a collection like that except perhaps the Canon 10x42 IS.

--AP

 

[Steve C]

I originally wanted the Zeiss Conquest HD 8x32, but since I was lucky enough to get it in 8x42 I thought I might try now something different. So, after all that fuss I think I'll go for a Maven B3.

First question: What about this color scheme in the pic bellow?

Second question (asked many times but undecided yet, sorry if you are getting bored): 8x30 or 10x30?Generally but also specially for Maven, which one is the best?

I have Pentax Papilio 6.5x21, Pentax Porro 8x30, Zeiss Terra ED 8x42, Zeiss Conquest HD 8x42, Canon IS 12x36 and Canon IS 18x50, so no good quality 10x.

I intend to EDC that little one, paired with my Papilio I already EDC. The Zeiss and Canons will be carried on birding, astronomy and other opportunities. I use the 3mm exit pupil of the Pentax/ Canon without any problem.

Thank you.

It matters only what you think of that color scheme. My 8x30 is black with gray focus knob and red accents. My B2 is Kryptec Highlander, gray focus knob and black accents. I like both just fine. There are any number of possibilities for color customization.

I personally have no use for much less than the 3.7 mm exit pupil of the 8x30. I did not even consider the idea of a 10x30. After the view, particularly at distance and in low light, I am set with the 8x30 and probably won't consider a 10x30 of any flavor.

With a 10x, there is no way I'd go less than a 4 mm exit pupil. A 10x50 would be where I'd go for a 10x if the glass I wanted was offered in a 50 mm.

 

[kkokkolis]

I guess you are right, 8x will give me a big field of view, something very important. I'll keep the door open for a 10x42L IS in the future, since I like them so much.

Alexis, what might be a problem with silver details? Reflections? Maybe I should go for all black then. I thought that, since they give us this option, I might have something different than the all black Conquest.

But outside appearance isn't what I want them for. Although I find the simple and classic lines of the B3 (contrary to the B2) aesthetically pleasing, as much as those of the Zeiss family design models and the Ultravids.

 

[kkokkolis]

How about that? Will it look outdated after a while? It reminds me of the classic porro bodies.

 

[Troubador]

Looks a bit like lizard skin Kostas, perhaps not giving a very eco-friendly impression. Alexis's all-black sounds better.

Your motto on the side could be 'από τον Όλυμπο βλέπω αιωνιότητα' although if you were brave or with a sense of irony you could swap Olympus for Piraeus :king:

Lee

 

[kkokkolis]

I was thinking my wife's name, KATEPINA (Catherine) but since I have that already on Opinel, Victorinox XLT and Skywatcher 12" Flextube, maybe "ΑΓΑΘΟΝ ΕΥΚΤΗΤΟΝ"
It is the third cure of the legendary Tetrapharmakos, the four part cure of Epicureans

"Άφοβον ο θεός,
ανύποπτον ο θάνατος
και ταγαθόν μεν εύκτητον,
το δε δεινόν ευεκαρτέρητον"

Don't fear god,
Don't worry about death;
What is good is easy to get, and
What is terrible is easy to endure

(Philodemus, Herculaneum Papyrus, 1005, 4.9–14)

This is the Wikipedia translation. The third φάρμακον means that "What's of real value is easily obtainable", meaning air, water, food, shelter, love, honor etc, although these are more difficult by today's standards (air is polluted, food is questionable or lacking for most of the world, we have lots of love today but Philodemus didn't have love for gold in mind) and that's why this quote is valuable as a reminder.

Regarding binoculars, it reminds me that I should enjoy goods that are easily obtainable, so as to not put myself over my beloved ones, or gain money with dishonest ways in order to fulfill empty and narcissistic personal imagined needs.

You'll see me with an alpha only if and when I have a lot of money I can't possibly spend on my kids, wife and other responsibilities (that might be never). But I'm lucky enough to be able to enjoy that Maven without neglecting anyone, so it's αγαθόν εύκτητον for me.

You are right Lee, that skin would make me look like a pimp, I'll avoid it.

Από τον Πειραιά βλέπω τον ουρανό και τη θάλασσα, από τον Όλυμπο βλέπω το χρέος μου.