Review: Maven B2 9x45: Has the $1,000 game just changed? (1 Viewer)

[Steve C]

I do believe there's at least one person on this thread that can offer up a real world (experience based) observation on that one....

I'm going out on a limb here. With Maven and Tract, we have two companies with the same business model, using the same OEM for the source of their optics. The Maven binoculars under this scenario are more expensive than the Tract models. It simply stands to reason the Maven should have some edge here. That is an assumption and we all know what assumptions are .

I have no doubt from my interactions with JGR and from his comments on the Tract that they are as good a binocular as most people need to fill their actual use needs. However, I cannot see there is any way that the Tract can be better than the Maven B1 I have (or the B2 and the B3 for that matter). I do not think it is in the cards. It may very well need an extended test over a tripod and a headache to declare a winner, but my initial wager would be for the Maven. I have been wrong before and may be wrong again. That is my opinion only and it may last as long as I need to get a Tract in my hands.

Which to choose comes down to the expendable income of the user.

Edit...Oops, I see I copied the wrong post...

 

[chill6x6]

I do believe there's at least one person on this thread that can offer up a real world (experience based) observation on that one....

As Steve mentioned above, having had both binoculars side by side it's a pretty easy choice between the two provide one has the extra cash. IMO the Maven B.1 is a better binocular all the way around.

I thought 7x was much more of a common standard, even up into the 90's. 7x35, 7x50. I wonder if the market drove the increase in mag.

A 2x increase (6-8) can make a significant difference, but it helps to have an increase in aperture as well, especially in low light. Smaller and brighter is preferable to my eyes over bigger and dimmer. The latter observation is fairly specific to birding, where the target is often moving around, and one is carrying the optics.
In skywatching, many targets are dim, but they perceptually aren't moving very fast, so one has time to tease out details.

Perhaps its time to give 7x a try. Research! How about those Zen Ray 7x36 that were causing a mild fever on the forum last week? Who's got 'em?

I wouldn't be so fast with the ZR 7X36. It's a little rough around the edges. If you want 7X do it right and wait for a used Victory FL 7X42. You'll never look back.

 

[chartwell99]

I'm going out on a limb here. With Maven and Tract, we have two companies with the same business model, using the same OEM for the source of their optics. The Maven binoculars under this scenario are more expensive than the Tract models. It simply stands to reason the Maven should have some edge here.

I know it must sound like I'm on the payroll (which I most emphatically am not) but the more I use my two Maven binoculars (B2 9 x 45 and B3 8 x 30) the more I appreciate the remarkable success of the design and execution of these two instruments. Kamakura is a respected maker and I own or owned two prior Kamakura-made examples (a Brunton Epoch 10.5 x 43 V2 and a last version Leupold Gold Ring 8 x 42) and thought both were excellent and thoroughly enjoyable binoculars. Neither comes close, however, to the Maven examples I presently own for optical qualities or ergonomics. As the names, Tract and Maven: both are terrible.

 

[[email protected]]

I know it must sound like I'm on the payroll (which I most emphatically am not) but the more I use my two Maven binoculars (B2 9 x 45 and B3 8 x 30) the more I appreciate the remarkable success of the design and execution of these two instruments. Kamakura is a respected maker and I own or owned two prior Kamakura-made examples (a Brunton Epoch 10.5 x 43 V2 and a last version Leupold Gold Ring 8 x 42) and thought both were excellent and thoroughly enjoyable binoculars. Neither comes close, however, to the Maven examples I presently own for optical qualities or ergonomics. As the names, Tract and Maven: both are terrible.

I really enjoy my Tract Toric 8x42 and Maven B.2 9x45 also. Both are very high quality instruments and it would be hard to say which is better because they both have their strong points. The Maven might be a tad better but for $650.00 the Tract Toric can not be beat. I don't see any reason to spend anymore than a $1K anymore on binoculars unless there are certain features you must have that only an alpha can deliver. These new Kamakura binoculars are exceptional optically and build quality wise.

 

[cycleguy]

I really enjoy my Tract Toric 8x42 and Maven B.2 9x45 also. Both are very high quality instruments and it would be hard to say which is better because they both have their strong points. The Maven might be a tad better but for $650.00 the Tract Toric can not be beat. I don't see any reason to spend anymore than a $1K anymore on binoculars unless there are certain features you must have that only an alpha can deliver. These new Kamakura binoculars are exceptional optically and build quality wise.

I see Dennis has fallen off the alpha bandwagon and he must have hit his head...

CG

 

[[email protected]]

I see Dennis has fallen off the alpha bandwagon and he must have hit his head...

CG

Once I compared the Tract Toric 8x42 and Maven B.2 9x45 to my Swarovski SV 8x32 and Swarovski SV 10x50 I decided I like the Tract and the Maven better overall. I don't remember hitting my head just seeing the light.

 

[wdc]

As Steve mentioned above, having had both binoculars side by side it's a pretty easy choice between the two provide one has the extra cash. IMO the Maven B.1 is a better binocular all the way around.



I wouldn't be so fast with the ZR 7X36. It's a little rough around the edges. If you want 7X do it right and wait for a used Victory FL 7X42. You'll never look back.

Thanks for answering all my questions Chuck! Much appreciated.

Bill

 

[jremmons]

I wouldn't be so fast with the ZR 7X36. It's a little rough around the edges. If you want 7X do it right and wait for a used Victory FL 7X42. You'll never look back.

Hate to disagree here, but I've owned 2 of the 7x42 FLs and currently own a pair of the 7x36 ED2 which I bought for $250.

While the FL is definitely a better binocular, it is most certainly not $700+ better - in my opinion of course.

 

[wdc]

Hate to disagree here, but I've owned 2 of the 7x42 FLs and currently own a pair of the 7x36 ED2 which I bought for $250.

While the FL is definitely a better binocular, it is most certainly not $700+ better - in my opinion of course.

I think that's the whole issue: astronomical increase in price for incremental visual gain.

When I purchased my first pair of 'serious' birding binoculars, I was able to try a small selection of decent bins, including Zeiss and Swarovski, however I ended up with a Vanguard Endeavor EDII 8x42. The only Zeiss they had was an 8x32 Conquest, and the eye relief was not sufficient for me. A Nikon Monarch 7 8x42 had the same issue. However a Swarovski EL 8x32 was a really good fit. Lightweight, eye relief excellent. So I spent some time comparing the view vs. the Vanguard, which also fit my eyes. I observed a greater area of the image circle to be sharp, a reduction in CA, and a little more contrast. These gains were rather subtle, but they were there, and collectively made a better image.

The Vanguard, with a manufacturer's rebate, came out to $329, whereas the Swarovskis were somewhere north of $2200. In monetary terms it seemed evident to me that the view was not 700% better. More like 15-20% better, if I had to hazard a guess. My conclusion from this rather limited, and wholly subjective exposure to the Alphas is that a decent mid-priced binocular should easily provide 85% of performance of what the alphas do, and you will pay dearly for that extra 15%.

When I read (rather enviously) the real world comparisons/debates between all this alpha glass, I can only imagine that, through practice, one's sensitivities to these visual qualities must be heightened, and therefore incremental differences are magnified for those individuals. Hence a subtle increase or reduction in some visual character is 'significant', and worthy of debate. I'm not sure yet if that would be a blessing or a curse!

In terms of using them in the field, I've encountered the pleasurable experience when my binoculars disappear, in a sense, to just become an extension of my eyes. I understand the level of fascination that surrounds these devices, and the goal of finding the most 'transparent' one that fits the individual. I'm very glad this forum exists, and that such well equipped and experienced folks so generously share their views. I've learned plenty by lurking here for the last 6 months. Happy Friday everyone!

Bill

 

[jremmons]

I'd say buy an alpha (whichever model best suits you) if you absolutely want or need the best money can buy, but you'll in no way be limited by choosing a mid-range bino. And, if you're like me you may even struggle to see that advantages of the alphas as compared to some of the sub-alpha models.

 

[Troubador]

The only Zeiss they had was an 8x32 Conquest, and the eye relief was not sufficient for me.

Bill

It is more than likely that your problem was due to the Conquests excess of eye relief versus the length of the standard eyecups. Zeiss offer longer eyecups free of charge for the folks that find this an issue for them.

Lee

 

[wdc]

It is more than likely that your problem was due to the Conquests excess of eye relief versus the length of the standard eyecups. Zeiss offer longer eyecups free of charge for the folks that find this an issue for them.

Lee

It was actually the opposite problem. I wear glasses when observing, and I couldn't get a comfortable view with the eye cups set to the minimum. I had the same problem with the Nikon Monarch 7. Too see the full image circle I would have to push the binoculars too far into my eyeglasses, whereas the Vanguards and Swaros were a much easier fit. Its surprising what a few mm extra in that spec can do. It was an 8x32 Conquest, by the way. They did not stock the 8x42, which may have fit me fine.

Bill

 

[Troubador]

It was actually the opposite problem. I wear glasses when observing, and I couldn't get a comfortable view with the eye cups set to the minimum. I had the same problem with the Nikon Monarch 7. Too see the full image circle I would have to push the binoculars too far into my eyeglasses, whereas the Vanguards and Swaros were a much easier fit. Its surprising what a few mm extra in that spec can do. It was an 8x32 Conquest, by the way. They did not stock the 8x42, which may have fit me fine.

Bill

Thanks for explaining Bill, I was clearly wrong.

Lee

 

[ailevin]

I'd say buy an alpha (whichever model best suits you) if you absolutely want or need the best money can buy, but you'll in no way be limited by choosing a mid-range bino. And, if you're like me you may even struggle to see that advantages of the alphas as compared to some of the sub-alpha models.

As I wait for arrival of the two Maven B3s, I hope it is OK to wander off topic and mention birding. I spent about four hours today at Bolsa Chica Wetlands--what a spot! In no way did I feel limited by my economy priced Sightron 8x32 binoculars, though I was often limited by my birding knowledge. Not only did we see a broad range water birds and shore birds, we got acquainted with two perched raptors up close and personal (<15 yards). One was definitely as Osprey and the other may have been a Red Tailed Hawk. The odd thing about the hawk (assuming it was a hawk) was how it hovered in the breeze around 8-10 feet off the ground as if it was searching, and then flew off.

In astronomy we say that you are better off with binoculars (or even just your eyeballs) under a great sky than with a large telescope under a light polluted sky. Stretching the analogy a bit, perhaps one is a better off in an alpha spot with a decent binocular, than in a decent spot with an alpha binocular.

Alan

 

[Troubador]

The odd thing about the hawk (assuming it was a hawk) was how it hovered in the breeze around 8-10 feet off the ground as if it was searching, and then flew off.

In astronomy we say that you are better off with binoculars (or even just your eyeballs) under a great sky than with a large telescope under a light polluted sky. Stretching the analogy a bit, perhaps one is a better off in an alpha spot with a decent binocular, than in a decent spot with an alpha binocular.

Alan

Hi Alan
The other odd thing about Red-tails (to us Europeans) is that it is called a hawk, a term we reserve for smaller birds like your Sharpie. Over here we would probably call a Red-tail a Buzzard and indeed our Buzzard will hover sometimes, especially if there is a breeze to help out. Our Buzzards are a bit 'laid-back' and don't like to put too much effort in.

Going back to your decent spots and alpha spots and astronomy analogy. Leaving aside the fact that what you suggest may well be true, and being argumentative for a moment, in astronomy you look out of your back window and decide whether you have an alpha sky or decent sky or just rubbish. Often, you don't know whether the birding (or nature observing) site you are going to will turn out to be alpha or decent so how do you know which bins to take?

Just yankin' your chain. The best bins you can ever have are the ones that are in your hands, the ones you are using right now, as long as you engage with what you are looking at and don't spend the time agonising about the bins.

Lee

 

[ailevin]

Lee,

It is a pleasure to be in a discussion where the "yankin'" (pun intended) is good natured and playful. Sometimes, particularly when the discussions get heated, we seem to be searching for some purely objective truth in an area where the subjective user needs and ergonomics are important if not at times dominant. I believe there is a certain cooperative bias at work since those considering a purchase may be looking for some sort of ground truth as in, which is best, and those offering advice are often quoting specifications to explain why their own binoculars work well for them.

As in other areas, in birding we seem to be two nations separated by a common language. To a novice like me, buzzard sounds so pejorative.

The message of the astronomy saying is that the sky's the thing. Fine equipment cannot make up for a poor sky, though obviously fine equipment can be a joy to use and enhance the experience. This advice is usually intended for astronomy newbies who tend to spend a great deal of time obsessing about equipment, rather than making some effort to experience good skies with whatever equipment they have or seeking star parties with local clubs under dark skies.

The three aspects of sky quality of most interest to astronomers are cloudiness, transparency, steadiness of the air (seeing), and limiting magnitude (light pollution). The first three factors are essentially weather or local micro weather. But light pollution is a more fixed geographic problem, and unfortunately I have to travel almost 100 miles to get to a reasonably dark site. There are weather models that include transparency and seeing and I use those to help me decide when to pack up and make the trip.

If I am going observing, I know exactly what I will bring, plus or minus trying out some gear or other. Not to be snobby, but I consider all my astronomy gear to be alpha in that there is nothing I would choose to upgrade currently, though of course that could change. I also keep my 7x50 Fujinon binoculars, and a minimal sets of charts and observing paraphernalia in my car just in case I find interesting skies on a random non-astronomical trip.

Here my analogy for birding right now. If I know I am going birding I bring my best binoculars (Sightron 8x32) and maybe my scope/tripod depending on where I'm going. But now I also keep a pair of 8x32 Celestron DX binoculars and a field guide in the car. Last week when I was up visiting family and friends in Berkeley, I discovered there was an aquatic park along the channel not far from our hotel and I was very glad I had the Celestron binoculars handy for several mornings of exploration there. In side by side testing I definitely preferred the Sightron, but I had no complaints on the road using the Celestron at that terrific spot.

Alan

 

[ailevin]

The Maven B3 twins arrived today in 6x30 and 8x30. Like the B2 they after dark and in a rain storm so initial impressions are based on playing with them around the house. As with the B2, fit and finish are very nice, and these two demos are actually more pristine. Also the bands that hold the objective covers seems like a better fit on this model. If I decide I want one of them, I would gladly keep the demo at the 10% discount. They are both black with silver trim, which suits me fine.

The ergonomics seem good in terms of IPD, size of eyecups, and fit to my face. I am still fiddling around a bit to find my grip as they are quite compact. They feel very solid but are definitely not heavy. One thing I noticed is that the focus is clockwise to infinity; is that a change? It seems to me that the focus direction is opposite to the B2 and also my Sightron.

I did some quick tests reading music and magazine covers in a well lit hallway. I was surprised that I was able to read finer print at a given distance with the 8x than with 6x. In prior tests I had convinced myself that I could see no more detail with 8x or 9x compared to 7x.

Assuming I get at least some break in the weather, I will be trying them out tomorrow at a nearby marsh/wetland.

Alan

 

[gcole]

The Maven B3 twins arrived today in 6x30 and 8x30. Like the B2 they after dark and in a rain storm so initial impressions are based on playing with them around the house. As with the B2, fit and finish are very nice, and these two demos are actually more pristine. Also the bands that hold the objective covers seems like a better fit on this model. If I decide I want one of them, I would gladly keep the demo at the 10% discount. They are both black with silver trim, which suits me fine.

The ergonomics seem good in terms of IPD, size of eyecups, and fit to my face. I am still fiddling around a bit to find my grip as they are quite compact. They feel very solid but are definitely not heavy. One thing I noticed is that the focus is clockwise to infinity; is that a change? It seems to me that the focus direction is opposite to the B2 and also my Sightron.

I did some quick tests reading music and magazine covers in a well lit hallway. I was surprised that I was able to read finer print at a given distance with the 8x than with 6x. In prior tests I had convinced myself that I could see no more detail with 8x or 9x compared to 7x.

Assuming I get at least some break in the weather, I will be trying them out tomorrow at a nearby marsh/wetland.

Alan

Hi Alan ... I am curious about the eye piece(ocular size) & the relief on the 6x30. Would it be possible for you to post a picture of both the 6x30 & the 8x30 binos side by side showing their ocular lens ? .... Thanks, gwen

 

[[email protected]]

The Maven B3 twins arrived today in 6x30 and 8x30. Like the B2 they after dark and in a rain storm so initial impressions are based on playing with them around the house. As with the B2, fit and finish are very nice, and these two demos are actually more pristine. Also the bands that hold the objective covers seems like a better fit on this model. If I decide I want one of them, I would gladly keep the demo at the 10% discount. They are both black with silver trim, which suits me fine.

The ergonomics seem good in terms of IPD, size of eyecups, and fit to my face. I am still fiddling around a bit to find my grip as they are quite compact. They feel very solid but are definitely not heavy. One thing I noticed is that the focus is clockwise to infinity; is that a change? It seems to me that the focus direction is opposite to the B2 and also my Sightron.

I did some quick tests reading music and magazine covers in a well lit hallway. I was surprised that I was able to read finer print at a given distance with the 8x than with 6x. In prior tests I had convinced myself that I could see no more detail with 8x or 9x compared to 7x.

Assuming I get at least some break in the weather, I will be trying them out tomorrow at a nearby marsh/wetland.

Alan

You can see more detail with higher magnification. If you don't believe me try reading license plates at a distance with various magnifications. That is why I prefer 8x, 9x or 10x. With my Canon 10x42 IS-L I have at least 30% more resolution than say a Swarovski 10x50 SV because I have a steady 10x magnification. You can't see as much detail with a 6x or 7x.

 

[PeteQuad]

There is a trade-off though. Examining field marks on a stationary bird with elbows propped, holding the binos with fingertips as still as possible, you could go higher than 10x and get more detail. However now imagine quickly swinging the binos up for a 1 or 2 second glance at a bird on the move. Lower power will let you get it in the view for an ID quicker and easier. There is also the consideration for viewing comfort. What is the sweet spot for magnification? Probably a personal decision based on your body and your preferred environment.

I have Canon 18x50 IS binos I use when I need long views, and I can use them even without the IS. If I am very careful how I hold them, I definitely get more detail than my normal 8x.