BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="denco@comcast.n" data-source="post: 3365993" data-attributes="member: 25300">It is just that they are being promoted as competing with the alpha's for 1/2 the money. "A GAME CHANGER." Here are some quotes from Steve:"Well, here we get to the tricky part of the review. I have a 9x to compare with 7, 8, and 10x samples. But the view here demands comparisons. The Maven B2 image is…well…superb. There is no other way to say it. I took the binocular out on the second day I had it to the White Lake unit of the Lower Klamath Wildlife Refuge. There are gazillions of water birds there this time of year. While looking things over, another car pulled into the access point. A guy with an 8x42 Zeiss FL and I struck up a bit of a conversation. He asked what in the world those binoculars were. So we traded off binoculars back and forth for a while. The FL is the ONLY alpha class glass I ever really ever came close to buying. I did not for the simple reason (and this is solely personal) that I did not like the high transmission in concert with the quite cold, even icy cool color balance. For this time of the year, they can be too bright. I quickly concluded that I liked the Maven better than the FL. The neutral color balance is much preferable to my eyes and removes the too bright objection. The Maven has better edge performance. Put the Maven in black armor and a Zeiss logo, and with the AK heritage, I doubt many people would not think the binocular was Zeiss. Heresy…maybe, but that is how it is. Not a Victory (pun intended) for either, just a point for the Maven.The next day I headed for a local Sporting Goods store who had both a Swarovski EL 10x 42 and a Zeiss Conquest 10x42. While I like the Conquest a lot, it is a step behind the Maven in apparent brightness, and a bit less sharp. I’d spent some time with the Conquest before and was not really surprised. The Conquest being smaller will be preferred by some certainly.But the Swarovision was the real reason I showed up. I know the owner as I buy a fair amount of stuff there. My version of “support the local brick and mortar family business”. So I told him what I was up to. I left him my card and he agreed to let me take it for a few hours. The image presentation of these two is superb and (for all practical intents and purposes) equal. I was pretty surprised as I figured the SV would be able to show alpha vs second tier improvements. I don’t think I could tell a photo of the image of one from the other. I’ll give the EL SV the edge in eyecup design, and it has a somewhat better edge. This is the reason I don’t think Maven needed to go flat field. If it can compete this well with the SV, there seems no need for the extra cost. There is also the 9x vs 10x and 45 mm vs 42 mm configuration differences. The Maven focuses closer, has a better depth of field, and a bit of extra 3-D. Now, there are certain folks who are going to read this and lose a gasket." My point is the Maven's are falling short in several areas. They may be worth the $1K but they are definitely not competing at the alpha level with specifications like that. Besting Zeiss FL's and Swarovision's I don't think so.:-O</blockquote>

Verification