Sun glasses with an SLR + polarizing filter

"Scott W" wrote in message
...
I have polarizing sunglasses, which are very nice for most things.
But when I add a polarizer to my camera and then try to use it the
viewfinder is all but useless, there is enough birefringence in the
optical path that I get a really odd pattern of light and dark.

I don’t use a polarizer that much so I keep forgetting about this
problem, and often leave my normal glasses in the car. My correction
is just a bit too strong for the diopter adjustment on the camera, for
me to use it without glasses.

Anyone else run into this same problem?

I have to remember to take my non-polarizing sunglasses when I think I
am going pop a filter onto the lens.

I might start wearing my contact lenes more when I am photographing,
at least then I can take off the sunglasses and still see through the
viewfinder.

Scott


Yes, I used to have that problem. The answer is Lasik.

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

Eric Miller wrote:

Yes, I used to have that problem. The answer is Lasik.

No thanks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/fa...se&oref=slogin

http://optics.org/cws/article/research/17441

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/200...q=lasik&st=cse

I was considering it until a friend's wife had trouble. Took her over a
month to recover during which time she received very little assurance
about the long term outcome... I'd have to ask how it these days...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

I have gotten so use to being able to take off my glasses and see
really well up close that I don't think I would do well with Lasik.
Just wearing contact lenses gives me a good clue as to what Lasik
would be like, I don't know if I would want to go through life like
that, with the contacts I can take them out.

Scott

Having had Lasik and being a former wearer of contact lenses for many years,
other than corrected vision, I cannot understand why anyone would think that
there is any similarity. There is nothing to "take out" after you have had a
Lasik procedure and it doesn't leave you with the desire to take anything
out.

If your concern is presbyopia, then Lasik is a simple trade. Instead of
taking your glasses off to view up close, you put them on to view up close,
if you really need them. I have a little presbyopia, but do a lot of reading
and do not need glasses. My post-lasik vision is somewhat better than 20/20.

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Eric Miller wrote:

Yes, I used to have that problem. The answer is Lasik.

No thanks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/13/fa...se&oref=slogin

http://optics.org/cws/article/research/17441

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/200...q=lasik&st=cse

I was considering it until a friend's wife had trouble. Took her over a
month to recover during which time she received very little assurance
about the long term outcome... I'd have to ask how it these days...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.


It's been around nearly ten years. I had my procedure done in 2002. My
impression of most of the complaints is that some people are bigger whiners
than others. For a short while after the surgery, I had most of the
side-effects that most of the whiners complain about, but even mentioning
them gives more emphasis than they are due and, on the whole, I found
contact lenses more troublesome than the temporary, post-surgery side
effects. They all resolved, the inconvenience of contact lenses and
eyeglasses never does. But if you want to focus on the 4.5 percent of Lasik
patients who aren't "satisfied" (whatever that means), or even the ones who
write articles in the New York Times complaining about it before they have
fully recovered, then so be it.

Some small percentage of people have probably died on the operating table.
That means Lasik is deadly.

Some other small percentage of people have probably died in a car on the way
to their Lasik procedu Yep, deadly again.

Some achieved a level of correction that was not 20/20. Never mind that that
level of vision wasn't promised to them, they aren't satisfied.

Some ignored the disclosures that specifically tell them about the possible
side-effects. So Lasik doesn't offer all it promises as far as they are
concerned.

I personally signed a disclosure that indicated, inter alia, that further
follow-ups may be required and then I was personally told by my
opthalmologist (sp?) that further correction might be necessary and that it
was covered by the original fee. I didn't need it, but some do, so Lasik is
a risky procedure that may require additional surgery.

What is interesting is the actual metric that is being used in the oft-cited
poll and that it is *satisfaction*. The *satisfaction* rate is 95%. How many
surgical procedures have that high of a satisfaction rate? I wonder what the
*success* rate is - how many people actually receive significant correction
of their vision without significant side-effects?

In any event, I certainly understand the reluctance to allow someone to cut
on your eye and the clinging to any perceived negative comments, articles,
studies or other publications as justification thereof. However, my
Lasik-corrected vision is better than most people who don't need any
correction (to be fair, before I started using eyeglasses, my vision was
just as good as it is now) and I don't personally know of anyone who has had
Lasik that regrets having the procedure.

Now if I could just get a fully frame sensor implanted in one eye so I don't
have to carry a camera around . . .

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

Eric Miller wrote:
"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Eric Miller wrote:

Yes, I used to have that problem. The answer is Lasik.
No thanks.


big snip

My point is that although wearing glasses is a PITA for me, I only get
one go around in this life and my eyes are my #1 standoff sensor. I
would not risk them at 1:1,000,000 odds, never mind worse than 1:10,000.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.