Frank. Did you compare them under low light conditions? IMO that is where the Swaro really shines or shall we say illuminates.
-
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.
Maven B3 8x30 ... (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter FrankD
- Start date
In case anyone is interested here is Kimmo's 2003 review in "Alula" of the original Swarovski 8x32 EL comparing it with the Nikon 8x32 HG DCF, Nikon 8x30 EII and Swarovski 8.5x42 EL.
http://www.lintuvaruste.fi/hinnasto/optiikkaarvostelu/optics_7_nikonHG_swaro32EL_GB.shtml
Bob
Optically the $400 Nikon EII 8x30 still beats out all the expensive roofs. HaHa! It is hard to beat that little porro isn't it.
There is no bigger fan of the EII than me Dennis; and I didn't post the review for that reason.
Coatings have changed since 2003 and that was noted in Frank's comment about CA. The EL's lenses have also changed since Swarovision was introduced.
Maven has used the new coatings that are out now to their advantage.
Bob
FrankD
Well-known member
Dennis,
Yes and no to answer your question. It was shortly after daybreak when we started birding but it certainly wasn't "low light" in the way I would interpret the term. I will be birding with him again soon I am sure and will be sure to check on low light performance specifically.
Also, yes, this is an early model EL and I did make it a point of illustrating that fact because the coatings have certainly changed since then not to mention the designs and possibly the glass material itself. It is interesting to note a few things though.
One, a currently middle-price binocular ($500) is now potentially better optically than one of the true Alphas ($1700) from 10 years ago.
Second, the fact that John thought the images were entirely comparable. John does have a bit of a background, and quite the knowledge base, when it comes to optics as his former career was involving microscopes. So even if the optics were "equal" overall he still enjoyed the more compact size and lighter weight of the Maven. He was a bit shocked when I told him the price.
Yes and no to answer your question. It was shortly after daybreak when we started birding but it certainly wasn't "low light" in the way I would interpret the term. I will be birding with him again soon I am sure and will be sure to check on low light performance specifically.
Also, yes, this is an early model EL and I did make it a point of illustrating that fact because the coatings have certainly changed since then not to mention the designs and possibly the glass material itself. It is interesting to note a few things though.
One, a currently middle-price binocular ($500) is now potentially better optically than one of the true Alphas ($1700) from 10 years ago.
Second, the fact that John thought the images were entirely comparable. John does have a bit of a background, and quite the knowledge base, when it comes to optics as his former career was involving microscopes. So even if the optics were "equal" overall he still enjoyed the more compact size and lighter weight of the Maven. He was a bit shocked when I told him the price.
The EII still has the biggest FOV of any 8x though except maybe the Zeiss 8x42 SF. That is it's really strong point.
My point is when I compared the Maven to a newer model Swarovski 8x30 CL which is I will admit more expensive than the Maven to my eyes at low light the Swarovski showed more detail. The updated coatings must have made quite a difference in the Swarovski's CL performance. I think the transmission of the newer Swarovski CL is still outperforming the Maven and when I compared my newer model SV 8x32 of course as to be expected there was no contest. The SV 8x32 totally outclassed the Maven 8x30 especially at dusk.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Frank,
I was Curious Yellow/Red after reading the review of the Maven B1 in which the reviewer found a significant amount of CA, and showed how it compared to another bin with ED glass side by side, using a resolution chart. The B1 clearly showed more CA. Granted the camera lens might have added some CA, but the B1 still had significantly more CA than his reference bin. As the owner of Maven pointed out in the video, all three models employ the same glass.
Looking at how short the B3 is compared to the two open-bridged roofs, i.e., it has a much shorter FL than the B1, I'm wondering how the B3 can control CA in the centerfield as well as an 8x32 FL, the reference standard in midsized roofs for excellent CA control, when the much longer B1, which also has S/P prisms and identical glass does not?
Here's what you wrote in your review:
"I mentioned color fringing in reference to this simply because the two are often interrelated. Such is the case with this model. Inside the sweet spot chromatic aberration is lacking. The image appears very “washed” and “cleaned” as a result. In this area it reminds me very much of the Zeiss FL and the Zen Ray ED series. Outside of the sweet spot in the transition zone all the way out to the very edge the level of lateral chromatic aberration increases. At no point do I find it objectionable though and only notice it when looking for it under extreme conditions."
How sensitive to CA are you? Some members wouldn't see CA unless someone spilled paint on the bins' objectives, and others see it in almost every bin even some in bins with ED glass. Where do you fall in this "spectrum?"
brokenroller
Yes, I saw quite a bit of CA in the Maven B.1 8x30 myself. More than the Swarovski 8x30 CL which doesn't have ED glass. I thought the Maven to show quite a bit of CA compared to other binoculars I have had.
Brock, (or anyone else)
How does one tell which Swarovski binoculars have ED or HD glass? That is, what is their name for it?
Bob
It is called HD glass. The newer Swarovsion's and the SLC HD's are the only Swarovski's to actually say they use fluorite HD glass. I know the Swarovision's have less CA than the older EL's so it must help. Even though Swarovski don't say they use HD glass in their other binoculars they use higher quality glass than a lot of manufacturers. For example, when I compared the Swarovski 8x30 CL which isn't advertised as having HD glass to the Maven B.1 which is I still saw more CA in the Maven. I asked Swarovski about this once and they said it was because the glass they use in the CL is very high quality and in actual practice controls CA better than "so called" HD or ED glass. It is not totally about saying the glass is HD it is about the actual quality of the glass used. When you buy more expensive binoculars you get higher quality glass.
Last edited:
Thanks Dennis,
The Swarovison line of binoculars seemed to be the only ones which have HD glass which Swarovski states contains Flouride. I finally found it for the SLC. It is right in the opening paragraph where anyone could miss it!
Who would have expected it there? See the comments about HD-OPTICS Glass under the SWAROVISION paragraph below:
http://www.swarovskioptik.com/about_swarovski/innovations
I wondered why there never was much complaining about CA problems by Swarovski users prior to Swarovision, not to imply that there is much now. There wasn't much about Leica and its Ultravid either and they were late in introducing HD glass.
Bob
Last edited:
FrankD
Well-known member
Brock,
To answer your question I would say that I am in the moderately susceptible group. I can see lateral CA very easily in almost any binocular. Longitudinal CA I can see if it is readily apparent in the binocular's center of the field of view. The Maven diplays very low Longitudinal CA inside the sweet spot. In the transition zone you can start to see the beginnings of lateral CA and then on the edges I would consider it moderate.
As for why one person sees CA in this model and another does not, I would first question what type of CA is being referenced. Second, I have found that eye placement plays a big role in being able to see CA anywhere in the image. "Perfect" eye placement drastically reduces visible CA while eye placement that is even slightly off can greatly increase it.
To my eyes the Maven's image is very much free of longitudinal CA thus the very "washed" and "clean" image representation. Everything is very sharp and neatly defined within the sweet spot.
To answer your question I would say that I am in the moderately susceptible group. I can see lateral CA very easily in almost any binocular. Longitudinal CA I can see if it is readily apparent in the binocular's center of the field of view. The Maven diplays very low Longitudinal CA inside the sweet spot. In the transition zone you can start to see the beginnings of lateral CA and then on the edges I would consider it moderate.
As for why one person sees CA in this model and another does not, I would first question what type of CA is being referenced. Second, I have found that eye placement plays a big role in being able to see CA anywhere in the image. "Perfect" eye placement drastically reduces visible CA while eye placement that is even slightly off can greatly increase it.
To my eyes the Maven's image is very much free of longitudinal CA thus the very "washed" and "clean" image representation. Everything is very sharp and neatly defined within the sweet spot.
The lateral CA and edge CA were more noticeable to me on the Maven B.1 than the Swarovski 8x30 CL. The big difference I see in different binoculars is how well they control these two types of CA. A lot of them even the Chinese ED glass binoculars control longitudinal CA well but what seperates the men from the boys is the other two types. One of the best binoculars that I have tried for edge CA is the Zeiss 8x32 FL as Brock has said. Zeiss probably specs some really good fluorite glass in those. ED and HD glass is kind of a marketing thing. Alpha binoculars have better quality glass as a given in them.
brocknroller
porromaniac
Frank,
Thanks for that response. As I've learned, CA is the eye of the beholder (in my case, literally, since one eye sees more CA than the other). However, those photos from the B1 review are more objective. Even allowing for the camera, both bins were shot through the same lens, presumably centered on the EP, and the B1 showed noticeably more color fringing on the resolution chart bars. Being that's the only review of the B1 we have, it remains a mystery.
A smallish midsized roof with nearly as good CA control as the 8x32 FL but with better ergonomics and costing a 1/4 of the price would be a very desirable bin for a birder on a budget who would like to own high quality optics.
brokenroller
brocknroller
porromaniac
Okay, but don't do that on my account, my right eye believes you.
But it would be nice to have two CA tests of two mavens. All three would be even better especially since Steve C. is on the "don't see it" side of the CA sensitivity spectrum.
Do you have a link to that hunter's review of the B1? I thought I bookmarked it, but I didn't. I want to read his methodology again and find out what his reference bin was.
brokenrollingdownhillfast
Here is the review I think you are looking for:
http://www.rokslide.com/2012-01-09-05-09-42/optics/329-maven-b1-10x42-binoculars
** note - Someone may need to relay this to Brock, as he may still have me on his ignore list. Seems as if I may have rubbed him the wrong way a while back when I gave him a bit of a nudge about trying a SV when he had not checked one out, but continued to lament them for the dreaded rolling globe.
Last edited:
So I'm flippin' thru the pages of my current "Trout" magazine the other night. If you aren't familiar with it (which you probably aren't because this is a bird forum and trout aren't birds), it is Trout Unlimited's publication distributed to its members.
Somewhere towards the back half there are a few pages dedicated to "America's Most Trout Friendly Companies". The larger more recognized names included such companies as Orvis, Tiffany, Costa Del Mar, Patagonia, and Simms. Then they recognized five small companies saying, "You don't have to be great. Here are five smaller companies that punch way above their weight when it comes to being trout friendly". Guess who is listed?
Answer: Maven!!! :t:
Just another thing to consider when parting with your disposable income... and if you haven't made the connection - healthy waterways are good for birds too.
Just thought you should know....
CG
Somewhere towards the back half there are a few pages dedicated to "America's Most Trout Friendly Companies". The larger more recognized names included such companies as Orvis, Tiffany, Costa Del Mar, Patagonia, and Simms. Then they recognized five small companies saying, "You don't have to be great. Here are five smaller companies that punch way above their weight when it comes to being trout friendly". Guess who is listed?
Answer: Maven!!! :t:
Just another thing to consider when parting with your disposable income... and if you haven't made the connection - healthy waterways are good for birds too.
Just thought you should know....
CG
Last edited:
