Hey @Steve, thanks! I came across that - isn't that the Mojave BX-3 & BX-3 PG? I was requesting a review for a BX-4. Or do you think they are rather similar?
Haha @Andy, yes, looking at a few of those forums as well! I also wonder about the value of the mid-range. I haven't owned any over long periods of time, so can't comment on their longevity. At least in the case of B1/B2, our own Steve, Alan and Chuck have been very happy with them, and appear to think they have good value. Now with the MHGs though, I am not sure. :-D
mksb,
Yes, that was the Pro Guide BX-3.
There was no BX-4 designation at the time and as far as I know, the present BX-4 pro Guide was then the BX-3 PG, in other words the same binocular. The BX-3 PG was elevated to the BX-4 designation due to the use of Fluorite in some form in the glass, which is not used in the BX-3.
In general, I pretty well disagree with Andy's evaluation. However in certain circumstances that opinion is correct. I may well skate out to the thin ice here, but I do not say this to demean, or to be critical of, any particular person or viewpoint. There is the plain fact that any binocular has faults, and if anybody looks hard enough they will find them. They may even elevate minor points to major ones. I get the impression that you are going to be pretty critical in your evaluation of whatever binocular you choose. That is just fine, since it is your money you spend, and you that has to use it. You have to like it, not anybody else
. You mention the Maven B2. You have said nothing about it until now when you make the statement about it and the MHG. Now, if the B2 does not suit you in terms of the image it provides, Andy's post becomes correct. If the B2 or the MHG does not do it for you, NOTHING in the mid range glass will either. That likely includes Leupold's BX-5 Santiam which is a remarkably better binocular than the BX-4.
It has been my position for some time now that any particular users satisfaction level with any product you care to name, is dependent upon what it takes that user to be able to shut off the little voices we all have whispering in our ear telling us there has to be something better. We all like the idea of getting premium quality at whatever level our disposable income budget deems affordable. The main advantage of spending the $$ for a top tier binocular is that at that point those little voices calm to the point where the user can tune them out and just use the binocular. The reason is that there is the realization that there is nothing better to be had. That is the prime reason for spending cash on a Swarovski, Zeiss, or Leica, at least in my opinion
.
As far as binoculars go I evidently can tune out the little voices better than some others. I have been looking for the right alpha binocular for me sine 1993. Still looking. From my perspective the big guns make lots of noise, but they don't live up to their hype by long shot. My perspective tells me that the mid range delivers 95%++ of the top end for way less than half the price. At that point my little voices go quiet, the voices of others do not. That is simply a difference in different perspectives, I do not say this to say any particular individual perspective is either right or wrong. Simply put, if the mid range glass does not attain the level of satisfaction you want, then Andy's perspective is the correct one for you to follow.
