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: 3180555" data-attributes="member: 25300">1)Accessories(Swarovski Wins)   Let's talk about the accessories for a bit. They are pretty important right? Maybe not to you but to me they are. The Maven doesn't include a CASE! That's right no case. Even with an $100 Leupold Yosemite you get a pretty nice case. A $500 binocular should come with a nice case in my opinion. The strap that comes with the Maven is WAY to big for a 30mm binocular. It looks big enough for a 50mm binocular. C'mon who designs this stuff. The tethered objective covers and rainguard that comes with the Maven are all right but they are made of a sticky cheaper feeling rubber than the Swarovski's. The Swarovski's are a slicker rubber which is a little thing but makes taking them off and on a lot easier. Result less frustration in the field. The Swarovski CL strap is also nicely sized for a 30mm binocular. Also, you get a NICE padded case with the Swarovski which fastens to your belt. 2)Build Quality(Swarovski Wins)   No contest here. The Swarovski has considerable better build quality than the Maven. The Maven's armour doesn't look bad but it doesn't look or feel as quality as the Swarovski. The Maven's has a tacky cheaper feel to it. Also, things like the focus wheel feel better on the Swarovski. The eyecups work way smoother on the Swarovski and have a quality feel to them. The Maven feels like a typical cheaper binocular with the looser fitting type eyecups comparable to a Nikon Monarch. Another thing that gets me with the trend to lighten binoculars is why do less expensive binoculars always have HUGE rubber eyecups with way too much rubber on them? Swarovski does it right with just a slim trim piece of rubber that meets your eyes. You don't NEED all that rubber! What for! The rubber doesn't go IN your eye sockets.3)Focus(Swarovski Wins)   The focus wheel on the Maven is too tight for my liking. It may be ok for you but I don't care to fight a tight focus wheel when I am focusing a lot following birds. The Swarovski CL is just right. Not too hard with just enough tension to keep it where you want it.4)Ergonomics(Swarovski Wins)   Both binoculars are almost identical in size with the Maven being an ounce lighter but the slenderness of the Swarovski barrels compared to the Maven's thicker feeling barrels together with the thumb indents makes for a more comfortable binocular. The Maven feels like everything is too tight and close coupled. The Swarovski CL is also better balanced.5)Optics(Swarovski Wins)   The Maven has ED glass and the Swarovski does not but the Maven still shows more CA than the Swarovski. The Maven does have the advantage of the bigger FOV but the Swarovski has sharper edges and a bigger sweetspot. Glare control on either one is about the same. The glare on the Maven is much better than say the Nikon M7 8x30 I had a while back. I compared them just as the sun was setting so it was a very difficult test.  I thought at first the Maven had better optics than the Swarovski because the bigger FOV kind of hits you in the face but then as the sun started setting I looked under a big tree and I could see with the Swarovski more detail and it just plain looked more REAL. They say the test of a good binocular is when it starts getting dark and that is where Swaro's shine. As it got darker the Swaro looked better and better and the Maven looked worse.  I liked the bigger FOV of the Maven but the Swaro view was closer to reality or what it should look like if you move 8 times closer to the object. A big FOV isn't everything in the end. I think you might miss this low light advantage unless you have a Swarovski CL that you can immediately switch back and forth with because at first I thought the Maven looked really good but then by trying each binocular time and time again I could discern the difference. I thought at first there was something different between the two but it took me awhile to to figure out what it was. The little plants and shrubbery under the big pine tree in the Maven B.3 looked like a fairly high resolution picture but in the Swarovski CL they looked REAL. It would be impossible without a reference standard binocular to see this difference. When I tried the Swarovski 8x32 SV it took it up another level even with an even more realistic view. Almost like there is no glass between you and the object you are looking at. I guess that is what superior optics are all about. When testing lesser optics you should always have a reference like a Swarovision SV or Nikon SE or you will start thinking that this binocular is the greatest thing you have ever looked through but the reference will bring you back to the reality that it isn't as good as you thought.6)Conclusion(Swarovski Wins)   I admit this was not a fair contest comparing a $500 binocular to a $900 binocular but this was the only binocular I had at the time to compare it with.The ONLY advantage of the Maven I see is the bigger FOV and I would rather have the smaller, quality FOV of the Swarovski. The Swarovski is an easier more natural view than the Maven. I feel more eyestrain with the Maven's. I also compared my Swarovski 8x32 SV even though it is not in the same class as these two binoculars and as you would guess it outclassed both of these buy quite a margin and it should at $2400. The Maven is a pretty good binocular in my opinion in the $500 roof class but it is definitely OUT classed by the Swarovski 8x30 CL.</blockquote>

Verification