• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Pick Pentax Papilio or spend 5x and pick Maven ? (1 Viewer)

bsparks

Member
United States
Hi.

I will be visiting Costa Rica soon. Along with my regular camera gears, I want to carry one binocular as well. Not just for me to see general wildlife, but for my 9 years old too.
I don't want more weight to carry, to I was not looking for 42. Possibly 8x30 should be good enough. Initially I was looking at Maven. I read good reviews about it.
B.3 - 6x30 / 8x30 / 10x30 [Maven 8x30 - $550]

Then I read some more posts and someone suggested Pentax -
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1113229-REG/pentax_62002_8_5x21_papilio_ii_binocular.html [Pentax Papilio II 8 x 21 - $99]

I am not well educated in binos, so seeking help here. Trying to learn reasons of 5x price. As far as I understood here are some differences I could find -
  • Pentax will not be that great in low lights because of small aperture of 21, while Maven has 30, so that will be better. If I am not going out much in late evening, will it matter for me?
  • Pentax is not weatherproof, but that is not big deal for me.
  • 8x is same in both. From both binos, I can see similar image magnification of the subject.

Is my understand correct here? Please advice.

Thanks
 
Generally, more money buys a better product, both optically and mechanically.

Don’t take a cheap binocular on an expensive trip.
I agree with the concept.
I was trying to learn, what features makes it 5 times more expensive and would be applicable to me.

Optically, will there be big difference if both are at similar magnification (8x) ?
 
Last edited:
I agree with Dennis. The M7 is a good entry level bin, a great traveler because of light weight, and will be better in the setting that the papilla and probably the maven too because of it's super wide field of view. Getting better performance for the setting with less weight at a cost between your two referenced targets seems like a win. Then, when you get home, if you're itching for the maven, let your kid keep the M7 or designate it the car and travel bin.
 
You're under a lot of canopy in Costa Rica, especially if you go to the Monteverde Rain Forest, so I wouldn't get anything UNDER a 30mm aperture like the Papilio 8.5x21. I like a 32mm or above, but you could get by with a 30mm if you're concerned about weight. I would recommend the Nikon M7 8x30 for your price point. It is a very nice binocular for the money.

Thanks for sharing your suggestion. I looked at its reviews and it is graded high. If I go with no-cheap model, then now I have two models and both are very close optically and weight.

MONARCH M7 8x30 - 514g (some shows 465g)
MAVEN 8x30 - 525g (Maven webshite shows 470g)

I searched comparison between both and found one old link - Opinions of the Maven B 8X30 vs the Monarch 7 8X30?
Looks like optically both are same.
Price-wise, I guess they can come close. Monarch can be bough from the eBay link you gave (directly from Nikon, it is expensive). Maven can go 25% at Black Friday.
So.... both are very close to each other in every way, from what I found. What do you think ?
 
Interesting! Looking again at the maven site, you are right, they are both almost identical in weight and field of view. In that case, assuming you want to get them new (or are averse to eBay), then I think I would try the mavens. I haven't tried them but by many accounts they are well built in USA from parts sourced from Japan (vs. China for the M7s - important to me only because there are stronger worker protections and fair wages in Japan). I stand by the Nikons being a good starter, but yeah, if you can get the best features for the same price plus better build quality that's a great deal.

One more thing - If it were me, I would be thinking about those 6x30s from Maven, for the wider exit pupil, which could make them easier to use for your kid and a more relaxing view for you in the cloud forest. Then again, the apparent fov looks smallish for the 6x, but that's just about the "immersive feel" and less about the real breadth of the field visible. A safe way to find out, if this line of thinking interests you, is to order both and return the one that you and your kid like less.

Have a great trip!
 
One more thing - If it were me, I would be thinking about those 6x30s from Maven, for the wider exit pupil, which could make them easier to use for your kid and a more relaxing view for you in the cloud forest. Then again, the apparent fov looks smallish for the 6x, but that's just about the "immersive feel" and less about the real breadth of the field visible. A safe way to find out, if this line of thinking interests you, is to order both and return the one that you and your kid like less.

Have a great trip!
Thanks, that is a good way to know, what will suit more.
Last year Maven has 25% discount during BlackFriday sale. Will wait for a month to see that.
 
Thanks for sharing your suggestion. I looked at its reviews and it is graded high. If I go with no-cheap model, then now I have two models and both are very close optically and weight.

MONARCH M7 8x30 - 514g (some shows 465g)
MAVEN 8x30 - 525g (Maven webshite shows 470g)

I searched comparison between both and found one old link - Opinions of the Maven B 8X30 vs the Monarch 7 8X30?
Looks like optically both are same.
Price-wise, I guess they can come close. Monarch can be bough from the eBay link you gave (directly from Nikon, it is expensive). Maven can go 25% at Black Friday.
So.... both are very close to each other in every way, from what I found. What do you think ?
Read Posts #11 and #14
(I did not read the whole thread)
 
Last edited:
Read Posts #11 and #14
(I did not read the whole thread)
Yes, Maven looks like a bit better.
He/she mentioned "The Maven is slighly heavier and feels much sturdier in the hand". Looking at the weight on their website, it looks similar.
 
I had the Maven B3 8x30 and the trouble with it is it has an overly stiff focuser. The Nikon M7 8x30 over all is a better binocular with a much easier focuser and is less expensive. Here is a Cornell Review of compact binoculars. The Nikon M7 8x30 was number one.

The Best Affordable Compact Binoculars (8x32): Our Review

"These stylish and sturdy binoculars deliver a wonderfully bright and sharp image, though the focus wheel is a bit stiff and slow to move."
Yes, I read Stiff focus wheel on Maven.
Nikon Monarch M7 8×30 is $479 (+taxes) in US. From the eBay link you shared, it is $340 (+taxes). Even if there is any Black Friday sale, Nikon won't be selling at $340 I guess. As this is being shipped from Japan, are warranty still covered by Nikon in US ? Or that is a risk like other lenses and camera?
 
I don't worry about a warranty, especially on a $300 binocular. I have only used a warranty once in 20 years on a Swarovski EL that had a stiff focuser and I sent it in to be repaired, and it came back worse than when I sent it in. Furthermore, I believe in self insuring. If you save enough on the binocular up front, you can pay for repairs or replacement should anything happen, which it most likely won't.
Agree.
Thanks for your advice. It looks great at $370 (including taxes)
 
@bsparks As an alternative merging both ideas, here's a wild card.

The Papilio excels in its close focus that makes it basically a portable microscope for the tiny fauna, flowers, etc. Seriously, Kneeling down and simply being amazed by the busy life of ants coming in an out of their nest is an experience worth having. That is what makes the Papilio so good. The image is also very nice, sharp and contrasty, but there are a few cons. First, it's a little bulky for the aperture, the field of view is rather narrow, and then it's not waterproof or especially shockproof (things to bear in mind in an "active" trip). For me it's a specialised glass for enjoying the close-up experience, not so much for general birding. Yes, it can do it in a pinch, but the focus action is slow, so it's not the greatest (I don't think it was actually designed with that in mind). It's a great little bino and great value.

On the other hand, something like a modern quality 8x30 roof (the Maven, the Nikon M7, Kite Lynx, Opticron Traveller, etc.) punch some serious image quality, one that can keep almost anyone happy for the rest of their lifes.

Now enter the Kowa BD XD 6.5x32. It has a wider field of view, a wider exit pupil, which coupled with the lower power makes for an incredibly stable view, and with way less focus action needed... all this is simply great for children (mind you, it's not a "kid's binocular"). And, to add to all this, it has one of the most remarkable close focus of current 32 mm binoculars, I measured it at 1,03 m/40 inches, which also allows for close up views of flowers butterflies, etc. So, it looks like a great proposition, and then the price sits in between, Amazon sells them for 349 $ at the moment. Maybe it's a lead worth following.
 
@bsparks As an alternative merging both ideas, here's a wild card.

The Papilio excels in its close focus that makes it basically a portable microscope for the tiny fauna, flowers, etc. Seriously, Kneeling down and simply being amazed by the busy life of ants coming in an out of their nest is an experience worth having. That is what makes the Papilio so good. The image is also very nice, sharp and contrasty, but there are a few cons. First, it's a little bulky for the aperture, the field of view is rather narrow, and then it's not waterproof or especially shockproof (things to bear in mind in an "active" trip). For me it's a specialised glass for enjoying the close-up experience, not so much for general birding. Yes, it can do it in a pinch, but the focus action is slow, so it's not the greatest (I don't think it was actually designed with that in mind). It's a great little bino and great value.

On the other hand, something like a modern quality 8x30 roof (the Maven, the Nikon M7, Kite Lynx, Opticron Traveller, etc.) punch some serious image quality, one that can keep almost anyone happy for the rest of their lifes.

Now enter the Kowa BD XD 6.5x32. It has a wider field of view, a wider exit pupil, which coupled with the lower power makes for an incredibly stable view, and with way less focus action needed... all this is simply great for children (mind you, it's not a "kid's binocular"). And, to add to all this, it has one of the most remarkable close focus of current 32 mm binoculars, I measured it at 1,03 m/40 inches, which also allows for close up views of flowers butterflies, etc. So, it looks like a great proposition, and then the price sits in between, Amazon sells them for 349 $ at the moment. Maybe it's a lead worth following.
I read about it and it looks great, have almost same weight.
When it comes to magnification, how 8 vs 6.5 stands ? I understand 8x means 8 times and 6.5x should be 6.5 time larger image. Will 8x not be considered as Bette than 6.5x ?
Not scientific, but I am get a general idea. I am familiar with leaves, but not with binoculars. For example, when I pick my 500mm lens, is 6.5x close to that ?
 
I read about it and it looks great, have almost same weight.
When it comes to magnification, how 8 vs 6.5 stands ? I understand 8x means 8 times and 6.5x should be 6.5 time larger image. Will 8x not be considered as Bette than 6.5x ?
Not scientific, but I am get a general idea. I am familiar with leaves, but not with binoculars. For example, when I pick my 500mm lens, is 6.5x close to that ?
Completely legit question. And one that unfortunately doesn't have a general answer. ¿Is a 200 mm lens better than a 50 mm? Well, it depends on your purpose, circumstances and preferences. 8x has become more or less the "standard", because it offers a combination of good reach (magnification), ample field of view and most people are able to hold it steady. For some 10x is the standard, while for others 10x has some cons, like less field of view and the fact that many people can't keep a 10x steady enough. However, 7x has been an extremely popular magnification for birders during decades (there are cult classics like the 7x42 Dialyt, the 7x35 Trinovid and endless 7x35 porro binoculars). So, as you see, there is no right or wrong answer.

Then, some people actually prefer lower power, for the reasons I cited above: wider field of view, which not only makes locating your subject easier, but also (usually) makes for an easier use. Just like in photo lenses, the difference in magnification has an impact in depth of field, and something like a 6.5 or a 7x has a much deeper field where things are in focus. Then you add to this that a lower power binocular has less shake/tremor (the natural micro-movements of your body, not talking about any medical condition), and the resulting image is extremely pleasing. Lower power usually give you the impression of higher contrast and detail, and tend to suffer from less CA (it's easier to get a 6.5x right than a 12x right). Some people are devoted to lower power binoculars for these reasons. Since you mentioned Costa Rica (in some areas super high power doesn't seem so crucial), and a 9 year old child, then a lower power seems to fit perfectly. Usually both older people and children struggle with higher magnifications. Not only a 6.5x has less shake, but also the exit pupil is bigger (for the same aperture) which makes finding the eye-position easier. Remember, you have to align the pupil on your eye to the tiny hole with light of the binocular (the exit pupil). A 6,5x32 has a nearly 5 mm exit pupil (4,9 mm), while an 8x30 has only 3,75 mm, and this usually makes a difference for users who are not that skilled.

So, there is no better or worse, right or wrong, but (like with any tool), different binoculars have characteristics that make them (in theory) more suitable for some specific needs or preferences. I hope that helps :) I don't know how possible this is, but if you could try a 6,5x/7x and a 8x, you will see if the difference makes sense to you. While you loose some power, honestly in the field (especially under canopy at close/medium range) it's not that terrible. Maybe worth a try :)

EDIT: as for equivalences between focal length of a lens and magnification of binoculars, some people follow a simple (but I understand wrong) system of making 50 mm (more or less the human vision) be 1x, and thus simply multiply, so 8x would be 8x50=400 and 6.5 would be 6.5x50= 325. But I understand it is way more complex than this.
 
Last edited:
Speaking in photography terms, the Kowa 6.5x32 (which according to one test is actually 6x) will give you less compression and a wider aperture. Both of these attributes make it favorable for dark, dense forest. One benefit that may not be intuitive for a new user is that the reduced compression and wide view makes it much easier to follow birds in flight.

Also, regarding magnification, there is a tendency for new users to think more is better, but quite a few of us eventually trend toward preferring more modest values. Part of this is about the benefit of a steadier view. Your camera may have image stabilization, and even without, you can opt for a higher shutter speed and shoot through an unsteady view. For lingering in a view, to take it all in over a period of minutes and not seconds (or 1/1000!), the steadiness of a lower mag is wonderful.


Edit: so, yeah, what yarrellii said..
 
Yes, I read Stiff focus wheel on Maven.
Nikon Monarch M7 8×30 is $479 (+taxes) in US. From the eBay link you shared, it is $340 (+taxes). Even if there is any Black Friday sale, Nikon won't be selling at $340 I guess. As this is being shipped from Japan, are warranty still covered by Nikon in US ? Or that is a risk like other lenses and camera?
If you decide to keep a binocular for more than a month, and you decide on Nikon; to ensure the Warranty can serve you, buy from an authorized dealer (in the US)or directly from Nikon. Maven is another matter, don't have much experience with them.
 
Last edited:
I read about it and it looks great, have almost same weight.
When it comes to magnification, how 8 vs 6.5 stands ? I understand 8x means 8 times and 6.5x should be 6.5 time larger image. Will 8x not be considered as Bette than 6.5x ?
Not scientific, but I am get a general idea. I am familiar with leaves, but not with binoculars. For example, when I pick my 500mm lens, is 6.5x close to that ?

As a biased fan of the Kowa 6.5x32, I hesitated to recommend it in response to your original post. But now that @yarrellii and @Dr. K have weighed in, I'll join them. In light of your planned trip to Costa Rica, the Kowa will be very hard to beat IMO. Especially --

Speaking in photography terms, the Kowa 6.5x32 (which according to one test is actually 6x) will give you less compression and a wider aperture. Both of these attributes make it favorable for dark, dense forest. One benefit that may not be intuitive for a new user is that the reduced compression and wide view makes it much easier to follow birds in flight.

The very wide FOV and DOF also make it a great choice for someone like you who is looking primarily for a "spotter" bin to use with camera gear and / or a spotting scope. As with any bin at the price point, there is some reported sample variation and the compromises inherent in the compact design don't agree with everyone so try before you buy if possible.

Mike
 
@[email protected]
No offense but that review is nonsense. Multiple things are just completely false.
The Kowa BDII has some of the best and most solid eyecups of ANY bino I ever tried. There is zero play in the focuser. The image is great up to around the last maybe 20% of the FoV -- it's a fact however that the older we get, the more blurry the field curvature might seem . There's also no "uneven" image.
I'm not sure why you keep reposting this review -- that is BTW from 2019! I am pretty certain they fixed most of the issues mentioned as my BDII shows none of them -- or this old review was based on a faulty specimen.
Sure, it's still "Made in China" which I dislike but at least by a Japanese company and it can be bought in stores basically everywhere.
I'd always suggest testing first but I'd also suggest no longer reposting debunked reviews all the time.
For anyone interested in some real info -- the BDII has a distortion profile that is very similar to the old Komz 6x24 super wide. It does have a slight mustache distortion and rolling ball effect. That is true. But the Pentax Papilio is even worse in that regard. I am normally not that much affected by rolling ball but using the Papilio 6.5x21 for longer distances is a rather unpleasant experience. I'd take the Kowa any day over the Papilio when it comes to allround usefulness. The Papilio is a niche bino for a very special purpose -- close distance viewing. It's great for that but IMHO not for much else.
 
@[email protected]
No offense but that review is nonsense. Multiple things are just completely false.
The Kowa BDII has some of the best and most solid eyecups of ANY bino I ever tried. There is zero play in the focuser. The image is great up to around the last maybe 20% of the FoV -- it's a fact however that the older we get, the more blurry the field curvature might seem . There's also no "uneven" image.
I'm not sure why you keep reposting this review -- that is BTW from 2019! I am pretty certain they fixed most of the issues mentioned as my BDII shows none of them -- or this old review was based on a faulty specimen.
Sure, it's still "Made in China" which I dislike but at least by a Japanese company and it can be bought in stores basically everywhere.
I'd always suggest testing first but I'd also suggest no longer reposting debunked reviews all the time.
For anyone interested in some real info -- the BDII has a distortion profile that is very similar to the old Komz 6x24 super wide. It does have a slight mustache distortion and rolling ball effect. That is true. But the Pentax Papilio is even worse in that regard. I am normally not that much affected by rolling ball but using the Papilio 6.5x21 for longer distances is a rather unpleasant experience. I'd take the Kowa any day over the Papilio when it comes to allround usefulness. The Papilio is a niche bino for a very special purpose -- close distance viewing. It's great for that but IMHO not for much else.

@Binocollector

My particular 6.5 Kowa is exactly as you describe. The quality of the eyecups and focus function are absolutely Teutonic. I do think of it in practical terms as a modern substitute for e.g. the Leitz 6x24 (never seen the Komz).

As in chess and boxing, so it is in bins. It's all about combinations. Synergistic combinations which result in the whole being greater than the sum of the parts and overwhelming the omnipresent compromises in any given model.

For anyone reading with casual interest, the usual caveats, personal preference, sample variation, YMMV and all that sort of thing apply.

Mike
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top