tenex
reality-based
After reading such glowing reviews here, I ordered a Maven B3 10x30 demo unit to try out. (The B2 with its AK prisms sounded even more interesting, but I'm thinking about a small lightweight bino.) I ended up wondering... why?
Pros: Very bright for a 30mm, as Maven claims. It has a good sharp view with a fairly wide field, free of annoyances despite even 10x magnification, with only modest pincushion correction. The oculars are large (about 24mm) with decent eyecups, giving a comfortable view free from blackouts despite its 3mm pupil. The B3 is also pleasantly lightweight.
Cons: That bright optical configuration sucks in unwanted light too, needing better darkening or baffling. There's a partial arc of glare around the exit pupil, and the prism edges are easily visible. Bright sources outside the FOV in otherwise dim light produce glare and intrusive rays; I don't know whether this has observable consequences in ordinary daylight, but colors do look a bit pale. And there's a serious problem with the internal mechanism: the same diopter setting doesn't work for near and distant objects. (Is that poor design or just poor QC? It doesn't look good for Maven either way.)
Beyond all that, the body really ruins the B3 for me. The focus knob is metal with unpleasantly hard sharp knurling, and some kind of (viscous?) damping that makes it physically impossible to rotate rapidly. It must be someone's idea of "smooth" but I feel that I'm always fighting it, forced to rotate so gently and slowly that when I finally creep up to the focus I want it glides right past, instead of snapping in nicely. The central hinge is also too loose, so struggling with the knob constantly causes my IPD setting to be lost.
Conclusion: I wanted to like the B3, and there seems to be much to like, especially optically. At the same time there's too much to dislike. I have a Trinovid 10x32 BN to compare it with, and the result isn't close at all. The Maven is somewhat brighter (due to dielectric mirrors now) and noticeably lighter (plastic vs aluminum); I like its smaller amount of pincushioning, and its larger oculars feel a bit more forgiving. The 15-yr-old Leica wins easily on every other count including sweet spot, susceptibility to glare, color saturation, mechanical construction, focus operation, and overall comfort and ease of use. If I were buying today I'd prefer a pre-owned BN for about the same cost, which leaves me with renewed appreciation for mine.
I don't mean these comments as disparagement only of Maven products; I'm willing to believe they're even above average for their class. My problem is clearly with their class. The experience of examining a midrange binocular leaves me wondering why they exist at all, and why people are so eager to select a favorite example to rave about -- two questions that must be very closely related. Of course I can understand inexpensive binos: really being on a tight budget, or just wanting something to keep in the car and not worry about... so get a Sightron, and make good use of it. And I understand alpha glass, which may seem expensive but isn't a major investment like a car, and will probably last longer than your car. Taking into account living standards around the world and choices in life, anyone fortunate enough to be free to spend $500-1000 on a binocular, and interested enough to consider it, can surely spend twice that if they choose, so why not enjoy an alpha? There might be a good psychology dissertation in this somewhere. If you don't sense something a little curious going on here, read Maven's website. They're selling a story, more than a binocular: that you're not like stupid people who overpay for Teutonic glass in order to buy a story instead of a binocular. I assume the irony is unintentional.
Pros: Very bright for a 30mm, as Maven claims. It has a good sharp view with a fairly wide field, free of annoyances despite even 10x magnification, with only modest pincushion correction. The oculars are large (about 24mm) with decent eyecups, giving a comfortable view free from blackouts despite its 3mm pupil. The B3 is also pleasantly lightweight.
Cons: That bright optical configuration sucks in unwanted light too, needing better darkening or baffling. There's a partial arc of glare around the exit pupil, and the prism edges are easily visible. Bright sources outside the FOV in otherwise dim light produce glare and intrusive rays; I don't know whether this has observable consequences in ordinary daylight, but colors do look a bit pale. And there's a serious problem with the internal mechanism: the same diopter setting doesn't work for near and distant objects. (Is that poor design or just poor QC? It doesn't look good for Maven either way.)
Beyond all that, the body really ruins the B3 for me. The focus knob is metal with unpleasantly hard sharp knurling, and some kind of (viscous?) damping that makes it physically impossible to rotate rapidly. It must be someone's idea of "smooth" but I feel that I'm always fighting it, forced to rotate so gently and slowly that when I finally creep up to the focus I want it glides right past, instead of snapping in nicely. The central hinge is also too loose, so struggling with the knob constantly causes my IPD setting to be lost.
Conclusion: I wanted to like the B3, and there seems to be much to like, especially optically. At the same time there's too much to dislike. I have a Trinovid 10x32 BN to compare it with, and the result isn't close at all. The Maven is somewhat brighter (due to dielectric mirrors now) and noticeably lighter (plastic vs aluminum); I like its smaller amount of pincushioning, and its larger oculars feel a bit more forgiving. The 15-yr-old Leica wins easily on every other count including sweet spot, susceptibility to glare, color saturation, mechanical construction, focus operation, and overall comfort and ease of use. If I were buying today I'd prefer a pre-owned BN for about the same cost, which leaves me with renewed appreciation for mine.
I don't mean these comments as disparagement only of Maven products; I'm willing to believe they're even above average for their class. My problem is clearly with their class. The experience of examining a midrange binocular leaves me wondering why they exist at all, and why people are so eager to select a favorite example to rave about -- two questions that must be very closely related. Of course I can understand inexpensive binos: really being on a tight budget, or just wanting something to keep in the car and not worry about... so get a Sightron, and make good use of it. And I understand alpha glass, which may seem expensive but isn't a major investment like a car, and will probably last longer than your car. Taking into account living standards around the world and choices in life, anyone fortunate enough to be free to spend $500-1000 on a binocular, and interested enough to consider it, can surely spend twice that if they choose, so why not enjoy an alpha? There might be a good psychology dissertation in this somewhere. If you don't sense something a little curious going on here, read Maven's website. They're selling a story, more than a binocular: that you're not like stupid people who overpay for Teutonic glass in order to buy a story instead of a binocular. I assume the irony is unintentional.
