Maven B.3 6x30 first impressions (1 Viewer)

I recently acquired a set of Maven B.3 6x30 binoculars and thought I should provide my impressions.

Before I get started I'll note a few points:

• I have other, very nice, compact bins with higher magnification, so with these I was specifically interested in lower magnification. This was intended for comfort of veiw and ease of eye position through a large exit pupil and for a broad depth of field (also, I wanted as wide a field of view as possible and that should be so with a lower-mag bin, all else being equal).
• The primary, if not only, use I have for such lower-mag bins is when photographing birds in close country (something I do in the bushland along the creek opposite me). High magnification doesn't matter much in these circumstances (I have a big long stabilised lens for close-up views) - what does matter is the ability to scan along and through trees and bushes looking for birds (especially the small, fast-moving ones). I need them to work well with glasses - I want to switch more-or-less seamlessly between broad scan by eyeball, closer scan with bins, then up-close and personal through camera and long lens. I don't need to be messing with glasses-on/glasses-off in the middle of all that. I also like that the large exit pupil means that eye position with glasses isn't so critical, aiding ease of use.
• I need compact and light-weight for this - my camera gear is big and heavy enough.
• Specs for all Maven's bins are here (scroll down). They seem to have a few, um, infelicities and innacuracies - but they also do seem to be getting better as Maven updates them.

Things I like about these Maven 6x30 binoculars:

• Good apparent sharpness on centre extending to about 80% of the (wide) field of view. The drop-off from there is gradual, not distracting, and seems mostly due to field curvature in that it can be focused out.
• Their real field of view is very wide. I'd guesstimated it at about 150m@1km, while Maven's (now updated) spec sheet says 446ft@1000yards - which seems close enough to my guess. I've no reason to doubt Maven's (new) figure. The apparent field of view is not so expansive - which isn't surprising in a 6x binocular. I never get the feeling of tunnel-vision, though - perhaps because the real field is so large.
• Their apparent balance between wide field and slight pin-cushion distortion works well, giving me not a hint of the "rolling-ball" effect when scanning nor making the pin-chushion distortion appear obvious (unless specifically looking for it at the outer edges of the field against some straight object).
• As expected for 6x bins, their depth of field is wide. That makes for easy scanning without too much need to re-focus (especially as my eyes have good focus accomodation).
• Their small size and weight - they are small and light enough to sling around my neck or pack in my camera bag without any inconvenience.
• Good contrast and saturation, giving the impression of good clarity of view.
• Chromatic aberration is low on centre, changing to moderate further out - but not distractingly so. Do note that I’m not especially sensitive to CA, so others’ experience may differ. Still, these seem better than most for CA control - something I confirmed comparing with some of my other bins against my standard "torture test target" for CA assessment.
• They are quite comfortable to hold, with plenty of ‘real estate’ to grip and no feel that they’re ‘fiddly’ despite their quite compact size.
• The objective covers and rain guard are simple, fit well, and are functional and secure.

Things to note (not necessarily positive or negative):

• Decent flare control. Neither the best nor worst of my bins. Flare is seldom distracting.
• Close-focus seems decent enough, and seems to match the specified 8.2ft. Without glasses I can focus closer (about 5ft) but that's down to my nearsightedness - and consistent with the way things work for me with other bins.
• Solid-seeming construction, giving an impression of ruggedness (I guess only time will tell how justified this impression is). The rubber armour has a nicely "grippy" texture without seeming "sticky". Some have made a fuss over their polymer construction - that doesn't bother me as they feel well solid enough.
• Eye relief is good for me, and the 4-position eyecups comfortable, both with and without glasses. In my intended use with glasses, and the eyecups in the 3rd position (2 clicks out), I can see the full FOV and get no blackouts. The eyecups seem a little insecure in the intermediate positions, but that hasn't proved problematic in practice (at least so far).
• The gearing on the focus adjustment is pretty good for me. I like a fast focuser, and these are (just) fast enough for me - which may be too fast for some.
• Direction of the focus wheel is clockwise to infinity, anti-clockwise to focus more closely. I've previously said I have no preference - but perhaps I'm forming one. My most-used bins are Zeiss and Nikon (clockwise to infinity) so perhaps that's giving me a preference where I used to have none. In any event, these surprised me, pleasantly, by focusing the same way - reviews of other Maven models have noted them as anti-clockwise. It seems slightly odd to me that Maven would mix this up within their range - perhaps this indicates that Maven is selecting already-existing designs they think are good, rather than feeding specifications to manufacturers.
• The strap, while good quality, seems way too large for such small binoculars. On the other hand, it is comfortable for my specific (carry with camera) usage. The fittings are compatible and interchangeable with OpTech camera strap connectors etc. (I have tested that, and it works) if I should want to change things. If I used these bins the way I use others I'd want a longer strap, which would be easy with the appropriate OpTech extenders, as would be interchanging the strap with something compatible and narrower. (All, though, at extra expense for a not-especially-cheap set of bins.)
• Value for money? At US$500 I wouldn't call the Maven's inexpensive, but good 6x30ish roof bins seem rare as rocking-horse, um, output. Are they better than the Vortex Viper HD in 6x32 (US$380 @ B&H)? I don't know, not having compared them except on paper. The FOV of the Vortex at 140m seemed a little narrow for the format, to me, and they're a little larger and heavier. Somehow I never went for the Vortex yet did for the Maven. Who said I was rational, anyway?
• Maven's much-publicised ability to customise/personalise your binocular's appearance doesn't do much for me one way or the other. I ordered mine with everything black. Boring, I know.

Things which could use improvement:

• There’s no case provided. These aren't cheap bins, and economising by not supplying one feels a bit unnecessarily mean. (I probably wouldn't use the case if it came with one, though, so there's no practical effect for me.)
• No other negatives occur to me (which is probably a positive).

I have been very pleased with these Maven 6x30s. Of course, Sod's Law being what it is, I've had limited opportunity to use them as intended - between work when the light is good, and bad weather (ie. bad light) when not working. Still, I have had some opportunity and, so far, they seem to be good at what I intend them for. For example, the other day I was chasing through the undergrowth after some unusual-looking wrens. The Mavens really helped with keeping track of them until I could get one staying still enough to take the attached photo. Turns out it wasn't anything that unusual after all - a fairly common blue wren (aka surperb fairy-wren) - this one looks to be a male in non-breeding plumage. They seemed too large, I'm guessing, just because they were very well fed: fat and happy. It seems that bad weather for photography makes good feeding for wrens!

...Mike

Thanks for the write up mike :t:

I'm interested in the 6x format from an image scale point of view. Like you said Real Fov is okay, but AFov is getting on for pretty slim pickings! (just over 51°), regardless, how do you find the image size on the lbj's and geewhizzits? :h?:

Are you using them just to detect movement, or is the image size sufficient to pick out various components and details of the bird? What sort of distance would you say they run out of puff for sorting details, and/or a decent image size? How does that compare to your typical viewing distances? :brains:

Is the mag enough to be making some specific calls on ids, or at least id features, or are they more limited to saying, okay that's a certain coloured shape, moving in certain ways, and seeming to be of a certain size? :cat:

Also, what sort of photographic rig are you using? That pic has nice sharpness, though you can see that light wasn't exactly in excess supply! Distance to that bird? Thanks :t:

Chosun :gh:

Chosun Juan said:

Thanks for the write up mike :t:

I'm interested in the 6x format from an image scale point of view. Like you said Real Fov is okay, but AFov is getting on for pretty slim pickings! (just over 51°), regardless, how do you find the image size on the lbj's and geewhizzits? :h?:

Are you using them just to detect movement, or is the image size sufficient to pick out various components and details of the bird? What sort of distance would you say they run out of puff for sorting details, and/or a decent image size? How does that compare to your typical viewing distances? :brains:

Click to expand...

The bins are sharp enough that I can usually pick out the details out to, say, 10-15 meters (more if there's better light or its a bigger bird) - especially if I'm familiar with the bird or they're pretty easy to tell apart - say silvereye vs wren (OK, maybe that's a bit too easy) or wren vs sparrow. Further in good light (which has been in short supply). That's plenty in the close scrub that I'm working through. At longer distances - if I have a clear sight-line - I just bring the viewfinder to my eye and look through the long lens

Chosun Juan said:

Is the mag enough to be making some specific calls on ids, or at least id features, or are they more limited to saying, okay that's a certain coloured shape, moving in certain ways, and seeming to be of a certain size? :cat:

Click to expand...

At the distances I've been using them they're pretty good for ID, not just colour and shape. Saves me chasing after sparrows or damnable noisy miner birds! :-C I do find them quite good for "focusing through" a clutter of branches etc. and for keeping track of the little b*ggars, that seem to take some delight in sitting still only almost long enough for me to catch up to them :C

Chosun Juan said:

Also, what sort of photographic rig are you using? That pic has nice sharpness, though you can see that light wasn't exactly in excess supply! Distance to that bird? Thanks :t:

Click to expand...

Canon 7D2 with EF100-400LmkII + 1.4x extenderIII. That photo was taken at about 8-10 meters distance [edit: EXIF data says 7.3 meters], and was cropped by about 50%. I was really just trying to work out what it was as it seemed a bit too robust to be a blue wren. It was a blue wren - just very well fed and watered B (and good luck to him!)

...Mike

Thanks for the feedback Mike - good info :t:

mfunnell said:

..... for keeping track of the little b*ggars, that seem to take some delight in sitting still only almost long enough for me to catch up to them :C

Click to expand...

Hahaha :-O .... yeah, that's why they're called "Geewhizzits" ! :-O

mfunnell said:

Canon 7D2 with EF100-400LmkII + 1.4x extenderIII

Click to expand...

Nice rig :t:


Chosun :gh:

Thanks Mike!

That's a good review!

I had the 8X30s for a while. The insufficient eye relief(at least for me with glasses) kinda messed things up for me with them. Otherwise I thought they were excellent for the price paid.

chill6x6 said:

Thanks Mike!

That's a good review!

I had the 8X30s for a while. The insufficient eye relief(at least for me with glasses) kinda messed things up for me with them. Otherwise I thought they were excellent for the price paid.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words. I looked at the 8x30s for a while, and passed myself - mostly because I couldn't trust that the eye relief would work for me. Sometimes it will, sometimes not, on that 15.1mm number for the 8x model. I knew that the 18.3mm the 6x provides would be just fine.

...Mike

mfunnell said:

I
[*]Their real field of view is very wide. I'd guesstimated it at about 150m@1km, while Maven's (now updated) spec sheet says 446ft@1000yards - which seems close enough to my guess. I've no reason to doubt Maven's (new) figure. The apparent field of view is not so expansive - which isn't surprising in a 6x binocular. I never get the feeling of tunnel-vision, though - perhaps because the real field is so large.
[*]Their apparent balance between wide field and slight pin-cushion distortion works well, giving me not a hint of the "rolling-ball" effect when scanning nor making the pin-chushion distortion appear obvious (unless specifically looking for it at the outer edges of the field against some straight object).
[*]As expected for 6x bins, their depth of field is wide. That makes for easy scanning without too much need to re-focus (especially as my eyes have good focus accomodation).
[

...Mike

Click to expand...

The measured fov on the 6x30 review set I had was 460', 8.8* more or less. Wide fov in a 7x or less is probably not in the cards. To get to wide angle fov lower limits of 60* means 9-11* angular fov. Aside from 9.3* on the ZEN ED 2 7x36, there is nothing in roofs that wide and certainly not any wider...at least that I'm aware of. Couple that with the pretty well established market preferences for 8x and greater, I'm personally not real optimistic.

Maven is dealing with an ultra conservative OEM who feels that nobody will complain about getting more on the spec sheet than what is listed. I can't say I agree with that and the guys at Maven are working with that issue.

The Maven 6x30 is poke you in the eye wider in apparent fov when compared with advertised 6x binoculars like the Viper and Yosemite. you sure do not need to measure the fov to see the difference

Thanks for your thoughts and for the nice write up.:t:.

Steve C said:

The measured fov on the 6x30 review set I had was 460', 8.8* more or less.

Click to expand...

If you measured it then I'm sure you're right. I just gave it a bit of a guess based on them seeming just a bit narrower than my Nikon EII 8x30s which are more or less known to be 8.8 degrees. I also noted that the old version of the Maven specs showed them as 8.2 degrees (430ft) which was excactly the same as the 8x30s (so didn't seem right at all) and was then updated to the new version which says 8.5 degrees (446ft). Foolishly, perhaps, I figured that if they'd gone to the trouble of changing them they might have tried to get it right! They don't seem very committed to accuracy in their own specs, often to their own detriment - which strkes me as quite odd :eek!:

Steve C said:

Maven is dealing with an ultra conservative OEM who feels that nobody will complain about getting more on the spec sheet than what is listed. I can't say I agree with that and the guys at Maven are working with that issue.

Click to expand...

Noted - but it still seems odd 3

Steve C said:

The Maven 6x30 is poke you in the eye wider in apparent fov when compared with advertised 6x binoculars like the Viper and Yosemite. you sure do not need to measure the fov to see the difference

Click to expand...

Agreed! :t:

Steve C said:

Thanks for your thoughts and for the nice write up.:t:.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words |:$|

...Mike

mfunnell said:

If you measured it then I'm sure you're right. I just gave it a bit of a guess based on them seeming just a bit narrower than my Nikon EII 8x30s which are more or less known to be 8.8 degrees. I also noted that the old version of the Maven specs showed them as 8.2 degrees (430ft) which was excactly the same as the 8x30s (so didn't seem right at all) and was then updated to the new version which says 8.5 degrees (446ft). Foolishly, perhaps, I figured that if they'd gone to the trouble of changing them they might have tried to get it right! They don't seem very committed to accuracy in their own specs, often to their own detriment - which strkes me as quite odd :eek!:
Noted - but it still seems odd 3
Agreed! :t:
Thanks for the kind words |:$|

...Mike

Click to expand...

I agree it is to the detriment. But Maven has their hands somewhat tied as Kamakura wants to be cautious...for whatever reasons. It does seem odd. :eek!:

However, accuracy in anybodys spec sheets should never be taken for granted. Some want to be conservative and on some sites the web people are not optics people,or vice versa.