Maven B2 review

[Brock A]

Anyone had a look through the B3? I'm in the market for an 8x30 but the Maven website is either severely lacking or not working as a mobile site. I can't find the B3 spec sheet anywhere.

Yep. Put some finishing touches on my review today. It should be in Ryans hands in the next day or two.

 

[69ChrisCraft]

There is a spec table at this link:

http://mavenbuilt.com/optics/

i beleive Brock Akers is working on a B3 review for Rokslide.

Thanks BB....apparently all I had to do was turn my phone sideways to see the full spec sheet. The FOV and weight is very appealing on the 8x30.

I always look forward to hearing your perspective on optics. Thanks for keeping us educated (or attempting to).

 

[Steve C]

The linked review in this thread is the one I wrote on BF. I see a couple of questions have come up that I will address one by one as I get a little time. There are three in particular that need some input from me. I'll start today. Thinking about the first one now.

 

[Steve C]

Interesting, I know some other reviewers that wouldn't agree with that love fest. Good glass, not big three good.

If you read the review, I said right up front that was a hard review to write. The reason is that you will not be alone in your expressed sentiment. I knew before I hit the submit button your point would come up. I have a motto of sorts that says respect authority, but always question it. I have enormous respect for the "Big 3". They got where they are by innovation, ability, foresight, competence, confidence, and plain hard work. It was not long ago there was no clear argument to your statement. However their grip started to loosen in 1995 when Pentax introduced a very good phase corrected mid price binocular. By 2000 everybody and their brother had mid priced phase corrected glass. The "Big 3" are still ahead, but not by the margin they used to enjoy. We are reaching the optical physics limits with binoculars. For instance the Dawes Limit for resolution in a 42 mm glass is 2.8 arc seconds. Simply put it can't get better than that. Some of the top end stuff is getting into >3.0 arc second range. There is not room for improvement human eyes can see. The light transmission range of 94% in the Maven is right on par with top tier glass. This is one particular design but like any other binocular, its particular design will not work for everybody.

It is a given that any review must include the obligatory "Good glass, but not Big 3". I don't think it applies here nearly to the degree it may apply to others. I also do not think everyone will be able to get a grasp of the idea, or if they recognize it can quite come to grips with it. This binocular, with no other changes except coming with a "Big 3" label would cost a lot more than $1k.

I tried to make the point I did not think there was a clear winner, and that some will certainly prefer one of the "Big 3". Maybe I should have been more precise. But you can't write a good review on a lesser tier glass and not raise this objection. The point here is, this is not a typical $1k binocular.

 

[Steve C]

My concern is he has Gold Ring HDs as his standard. I do agree with his assessment that most people are not CA sensitive. I have a pair of Maven B2 in 11x45. For the price they are an exceptional set of binoculars and this is coming from a life long Swarovski snob!

I hoped I had made the point that my comparative standard for the review was the Swarovski Swarovision EL 10x42, guess not

I dislike and rarely use the term reference standard. It does not make any difference what you choose, somebody thinks it should have been different. I'm still waiting for somebody to tell me that I should have used the Swarovski SLC-HD because it has much better contrast than the SV. Hasn't come up yet, but who knows. That might be hard to argue since the SLC-HD is my pick of the Swarovski litter. However I did not have access to one to use.

I know there are those who don't think much of the GR. I know Leupold had some issues in deciding whether to get fully produced binoculars, and on deciding how much they could or would assemble in Oregon. They never quite got their ducks all lined up in a row, QC suffered and as a result so did the GR. The original >$1,500 GR price was with as much assembly done in Oregon as they could do. Union labor etc. A howl went up about the price and the weight. There are certainly folks who agree with you and WRO. I'd wager a steak dinner that your objections would vanish with a look through mine. I have never posted a review on it, nor have I ever even said much about it. The reason is I got mine as excess to Leupold's testing needs straight out of extended use as a test vehicle by the Leupold engineers in their optics lab. As good as it seems, I have to wonder just how far past the status of a production run this one is. So since I have no idea how typical it is I usually say nothing about it.

OK, the next post I'm going to reply to Matts' and everybody else's CA comments. No time right now.

 

[Matt Cashell]

I use the term reference standard, with the caveat that it is mine, and nobody else's.

Having a standard binocular to compare others to, helps the comparison, IMO, and provides better comparative information than the row of binoculars "beauty contest" type reviews.

 

[Steve C]

I use the term reference standard, with the caveat that it is mine, and nobody else's.

Having a standard binocular to compare others to, helps the comparison, IMO, and provides better comparative information than the row of binoculars "beauty contest" type reviews.

I have no argument with that.

 

[Matt Cashell]

....and you should have compared the B2 to the SLC.

 

[stephen b]

Speaking of the SLC- HD and SV comparison. Here is a review that was linked over on the BF site:

http://www.greatestbinoculars.com/allpages/reviews/swarovski/swaroel8.5x42sv/swaroel8.5x42sv.html

I personally really like the SLC- HD myself ( and wish they would do a 8x30/32 SLC HD); even though I do like the 8x42 one. This reviewer brought up some interesting personal observations between the 2. Interesting to me in that some people look at both of those and come up with opposite opinions. But they are both so great, it really comes down to personal preferences. And I thought his observation that he had more problems with the rolling globe effect with the 8x32 SV vs the 8.5x42 SV; because from what I have read and my own personal observation was that the 8x32 SV was not too bad with that effect.

 

[Steve C]

Wouldn't agree in what way?

I have spoken to Steve a few times over the years, and although I don't agree with his assessments all the time, he is certainly knowledgeable.

Like Ryan, I agree that not all people are CA sensitive, but I disagree with Steve's insinuation that if one isn't particularly bothered by CA, that it doesn't affect the image. It certainly does. There is a reason manufacturers put so much effort and technology into correcting it.

That is really a statement of opinion rather than an insinuation

I am not real sure how to go about this. There is a great divide when it comes to CA. Mat and I stand on opposite sides of the dividing line. I am CA insensitive, Matt is CA sensitive. As far as I'm concerned, you either see CA or you don't. If you don't, you can teach yourself to see it. If you are, there is a very good chance your taught yourself to see it. On another forum, in response to my yet unanswered question about CA, Matt said he thinks his acquired CA sensitivity is the result of his loosing his innocence and realizing what was already there. That is a very good way to look at it, but I can't really agree with it. As I see it your eyes either have more or less need a binocular that corrects CA. The process of our eyes dealing with CA is a combination of our biological optical system eyes interacting with the mechanical optical system of the binocular we have our eyes looking through. Some people need less help from the design of the mechanical system than others.

I get the idea that CA is a fact of optical physics. I accept the fact that it is always there, and can not be totally corrected out. I get the idea that people are bothered by CA. On the other hand, I have lost track of how many PM's and forum replies I have see patiently explaining the fact of the CA presence, describing what it is and how simple it is to see. I have even had my vision, particularly my degree of color blindness, called to question. I have always had good, non color blind vision. Just had an eye exam not long ago, I still do, even though I'm going to hit 67 in May.

I did not address CA much in my first few optical reviews. I figured since I had normal eyesight and didn't see it it was not a problem. I soon learned that CA questions were a fact of life in optical review discussions. So I started looking into the CA question. I still have more questions than answers. However I do know what it is, I have developed a mechanism I can use to detect its presence. I judge the degree of proper CA control in design by how difficult it is for me to bring it out. I do state in reviews I am CA insensitive. I think a reviewer owes it to the reader a statement of CA sensitivity. I think someone ought to know I'm insensitive and Matt is. One of my unanswered questions is whether or not a reviewers CA sensitivity packs more credibility form Matt or from me, assuming most other facets of the binocular are something we agree on. Or does that simply call to question how the readers sensitivity relates to the degree of the CA sensitivity of the reviewer? Bottom line is you have to see that (or not see it) for yourself.

One thing that has become apparent to me, in no small measure, is that CA sensitive people (well most of them anyway) simply can't grasp that someone does not see it, or that they can't possibly not be bothered by it, or that since it is there is HAS to be degrading the image. The can't even entertain the notion that their CA sensitivity is not normal. Matt, I'll grant likely can, since, if I correctly recall past conversations with him, he started out CA insensitive. But once you attain sensitivity, there is no going back. At the sensitivity level you need a well designed binocular with CA control paramount. I think any good binocular controls CA pretty well. I also give credence to a design that controls it well, as it will excel in many other important features.

Another as yet unanswered question is , just what is the degree in which CA sensitivity present? I haven't had anybody really answer that one yet. In my chasing the topic , I have developed some relatively serious contacts with optics people. I have had two US patent holding Optical Engineers, with career long employment in sports optics design, tell me they don't think most people are CA sensitive. The agree it is there, and as a matter of course in priding themselves on their work they strive to attain good CA control, since in doing so they are on their way to a good design. Another senior product manager agree with that position. I've run optics booth at out local big deal birding show, the Winter Wings Festival, I've answered questions from hundreds of people in the process. I can count on the fingers of one hand the questions I've had about how well the binocular is at CA control. Another dealer there who always has a booth and always gives workshop and seminar sessions on choosing and using optics, who has thousands of interactions with people agrees. This is not a double blind scientific study, just some observations on my part. I still have no idea how prevalent, naturally occurring CA sensitivity is.

I tend to think my view through a well corrected CA controlled binocular may well be less degraded than it is for a CA sensitive type. I see it as my eyes being able to complete the CA control the design, by definition, cant. But there is another question I have that remains unanswered.

So I try to do my best CA assessment and state my CA insensitivity. Maybe in time' I'll join Matt in loss of my CA innocence. I hope not, but be assured I'm going to be careful as I can not to do it to myself by looking too hard for it.

 

[Yellowknife]

This thread seems to have gotten fairly far off track, but on the subject of CA I'll just point out that those of us that wear glasses live with a significant amount of totally uncorrected CA all day, every day. Particularly people with really strong prescriptions (which I have).

As optics, glasses are pretty bad. Off-axis gets fuzzy and distorted fast, and that CA flare at the edges of my prescription is VERY present. Functionally though, I can resolve as good with glasses as the majority of people (20/15 corrected vision), and if you can see it, I can likely find it also. When looking through binoculars, I won't "see" CA unless it is very obvious, as it is masked by that ever-present aspect of my glasses which my brain has adapted too a long time ago.

 

[Matt Cashell]

I suppose the thread is still somewhat on track because it was a thread about Steve's review, and he was explaining one part of said review.

I will respond since he brings me up.

CA is a function of physics, and is perfectly real, as Steve mentions.

It can only degrade the image, and serves no benefit. It is always better for an optic to correct this aberration.

Reviews should always include mention of an optic's CA control.

Rather than "sensitive" and "insensitive" I would prefer to think of it as a person "identifies" or "ignores" the phenomena. It is there regardless, and one can identify it without being particularly (or severely) bothered by it.

IMO, it serves no purpose in an optics review to ignore the performance of the optic in this area, or mitigate its importance.

A review that is critical of CA control performance then allows the reader to choose what to make of it, and if they typically ignore CA, they can move on to other areas of the review. If CA control is important to them, they can put more weight to that part. A review need not express that the reviewer is either an "identifier" or "ignorer," although perhaps an identifier will be giving the reader more information to work with in that area.

Certainly I think that an optic that struggles in any area of optical performance can still excel in others, so just because a binocular corrects for CA better than another doesn't mean it is the better overall binocular. That is why it is so hard to choose the "best."

 

[Steve C]

Matt,

That is as good a reply as I have received, I thank you for it. However I will vigorously point out that I do not ignore the phenomena. I am not affected by it to the level of others.

Yes it is always there, and can only degrade the image. However some eyes can control, or accommodate the presence of CA with less assistance from the glass. This is a question that will always have people expressing differing opinions.

Overall I agree and since we've both stated our position I think it is likely best to leave it there. You are correct in that this argument is one of the many that mitigate against proving any one binocular is best. One of the things I have come to conclude is that I am never surprised by one persons difference of reaction from another to the same binocular under the same situations.

I think reviews are supposed to initiate discussion.

 

[WRO]

I think the ca discussion doesn't matter at 500 yards, but it does at a 1000 plus.

For example, we could all identify the same 4 point mule deer buck at 300 yards with any piece of glass over 200.00 @ a grand the high end glass will be much better in telling frame size etc.

We did a side by side test with an stx 85 and an sts 80 looking at rams at ~2.5 miles. I could get age class (classes 1-4) with the x series and approximate score vs just tell they were decent rams with the sts.

The ca definitely made a difference at that distance.

The × series uses swarovision, the same series uses the slc technology..

 

[Brock A]

B3 review is up!

http://www.rokslide.com/2012-01-09-05-09-42/optics/337-maven-optics-b3-review

 

[troutdreamer]

B2 video

https://vimeo.com/122817041