A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Eyeglasses



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old April 8th 09, 03:45 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography
TonyCooper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Eyeglasses

On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 07:53:15 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

Paul Furman wrote:

I only got glasses the first time 3 years ago at
the same place so this is only my second such appointment ever. No
insurance. $600 including $100 more for somewhat 'designer' frames,
progressive bifocals & auto-tinting sunglasses effect. I tend to avoid
doctors, dentists & such and do not generally trust them.


$600??? For a pair of glasses? Add opticians to your list.


I suppose I could find a frame where the cost of frame and lenses
would be $600, but I've never noticed that shelf in the optician's
office.

Glasses in this area start at $100 for a basic frame and single-vision
lenses . There are extra charges for bifocal, anti-scratch-coating
and anti-reflection. Some of the chain opticians (like Lenscrafters)
offer specials on two or more pair with a limited selection of frames.

The above does not include the eye "exam", but some optical stores do
not charge for an eye exam. Some do.

I wear titanium frames with the lenses held in place by fishline
instead of the frame going all the way around the lens. I think the
frames were about $150 (lenses extra) but there was a discount for
buying three pair at once (regular, tinted, and computer glasses) My
computer glasses are standard el-cheapo frames.

My wife's frames were more (but not at the $600 level), but she has
"designer" frames. To her, glasses are face jewelry that improve
vision. Her total cost was around $450 or $500, but she has
progressive bifocals and that adds to the cost.

I don't have the progressive lenses. I've never seen that as an
advantage, and the bifocal "line" doesn't bother me.

My biggest problem with glasses is that I wear single-vision glasses
when I'm on the computer, and these glasses have what would be my
bifocal prescription as the full lens. My distance vision is fuzzy
with these glasses. Sometimes I forget to change glasses when I leave
the computer and walk around the house in these glasses. Everything
is blurred.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
  #22  
Old April 8th 09, 04:04 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default Eyeglasses

jimkramer wrote:
"Atheist Chaplain" wrote in message
...
"dadiOH" wrote in message
...
Paul Furman wrote:

I only got glasses the first time 3 years ago at
the same place so this is only my second such appointment ever. No
insurance. $600 including $100 more for somewhat 'designer' frames,
progressive bifocals & auto-tinting sunglasses effect. I tend to avoid
doctors, dentists & such and do not generally trust them.
$600??? For a pair of glasses? Add opticians to your list.

$600 is only a middle of the road pair of frames, and depending on types
of lens you could easily ad an extra $200-300 if you go with bi-focal,
photo grey, glass lens, anti-reflective coatings etc.

Maybe in your hemisphere, but $600 is pretty steep in the US, especially for
a very minor correction. I just assumed it was a California Price Special.
Paid $425 for mine with all the goodies and titanium frames.


Downtown San Francisco location.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
  #23  
Old April 8th 09, 04:33 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography
Paul Furman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,367
Default Eyeglasses

Martin Brown wrote:
Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-04-07 19:59:30 -0700, Paul Furman said:

THE SNIP
Here's the (confusing) data:

2006
sph cyl axis prism add (add for distance)
+1.00 -0.50 157 +1.25 (right)
+0.50 -0.50 077 +1.25 (left)

2009
sph cyl axis prism add (add for reading)
+025 PS +1.50 (right)
+025 PS +1.50 (left)

Note the difference: (add for distance)/(add for reading)
-perhaps I wrote it down wrong in 2006?


Don't you actually get a prescription certificate of the test?
In the UK you can then take the prescription to any optician you like,
and not necessarily the one that did the test.


Yes these numbers are on a form with the licensed practitioner's
signature. I was told not to scribble on it when I wanted to add notes
explaining right/left, near/far, etc, which is all in code. I scribbled
anyways.

Here's the way the 2006 one was actually formatted:

2006
(sun)
sph cyl axis prism add
+1.00 -0.50 157 (right)
+0.50 -0.50 077 (left)

(work/primary)
sph cyl axis prism add
+1.00 -0.50 157 +1.25 (right)
+0.50 -0.50 077 +1.25 (left)

(reading)
sph cyl axis prism add
+2.25 -0.50 157 (right)
+1.75 -0.50 077 (left)


For this one I confirmed the math for reading glasses:
+025 distance plus +150 = +1.75 (in walgreens reading glasses
terminology).

Last time, I was told I had an astigmatism in one or more eyes, I
don't recall. That seems to be the cyl/axis data? My observations
above about tilting and asymmetry suggest an asymmetry for which I
don't have the knowledge to describe properly. Do the 2006 numbers
explain that or some other situation? Should I complain that this
exam was not accurate enough, or just pay more for a more custom
service next time? They said something about a free adjustment
appointment in a month or something like that...


You are correct the cyl/axis data is indicative of astigmatism in both
eyes. I think you were robbed.


Seems a bit steep for what are little more than a pair of overpriced
designer framed reading glasses (at least if the 2009 prescription is to
be believed). My own optician now has a direct laser speckle measurement
system that is surprisingly accurate and much quicker. He reckons it is
also more reliable since with the classical test methodology so few
people answer all his questions correctly.


Right, I felt unable to answer convincingly in some cases.


Measured Sph +0.25 on its own would not normally be worth correcting
never mind having varifocal lenses.


I was told bifocal is also useful if no correction for distance because
you don't have to keep taking the glasses off & on. It drove me nuts
doing that for the week before this appointment.


I didn't get reading glasses until
my arms were not long enough to obtain focus which was about Sph 0.5.

Incidentally I hope the US test includes a routine check for glaucoma if
you are over 40 (it wasn't mentioned).


Yes, that was the fancy new retina scan camera and I guess also the
extra for dilating my eyes to examine inside manually.


You have been given a very poor refaction (optometrist speak for a
vision exam).

Your 2006 Rx is indicative of astigmatism which is corrected with a
sphero-cylindrical, or toroidal lens. The Rx shows the difference in
both eyes and the angle of astigmatism. The +1.25 add gives you the
reading correction. This seems to be an appropriate correction for most.

Now for 2009. You seem to have found a clown refractionist, trying to
do an eye-ball refraction without any concern for your vision issues.
Astigmatism is not going to vanish. It will change, but not magically
disappear.
You have been given a new Rx without astigmatism cylinder correction,
only a simple spherical lens + reading correction. They gave you a
cheap fix and hoped you would go away.
I am surprised you are not getting headaches, and possibly a little
nauseous.

If you look at the ball park numbers for the left eye, in 2006 in one
axis you had +0.50 -0.50 giving you an effective 0.00 correction in
one axis and +0.50 in the other. The effective reading correction
would be +1.25/1.75


I came up with +175/225 for a spare set of walgreens reading glasses...
I don't recall if that was my bad math or just testing in the drug
store. It allowed me to read up close.


In 2009 they have given you an averaged +0.25 with a reading
correction equaling +1.75, The same as in your major astigmatic axis
in 2006.

There are similar issues with your right eye.
A competent optometist would also do a binocular balance between the
two eyes.


A photographer with a lens chart or similar test piece should be able to
tell if their sight is astigmatic in low light. Text will seem blurred
in one direction and sharp the other.

A quick and dirty test would be how well can you read fine print close
up and larger print at a distance with the old glasses and the new ones.
If the old ones give an obviously sharper focus then you have been had.


The right lens is missing on the old pair. It's all kind of abstract to
me, too much of a subjective artist's eye perhaps where my brain's
interpretation has a lot to do with what I notice or not.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam
  #24  
Old April 8th 09, 05:22 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography
Martin Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 821
Default Eyeglasses

Paul Furman wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:


I didn't get reading glasses until my arms were not long enough to
obtain focus which was about Sph 0.5.

Incidentally I hope the US test includes a routine check for glaucoma
if you are over 40 (it wasn't mentioned).


Yes, that was the fancy new retina scan camera and I guess also the
extra for dilating my eyes to examine inside manually.


In Europe they also do a specific eyeball pressure test and the whole
eye test is free for anyone with a family history of glaucoma.

In the UK it is usually done by a mildly annoying device that blasts a
pulse of air at your eye and measures the deflection. You would remember
it.

Compared to the more accurate method used when I lived in Belgium that
required full eyeball contact with a microscope. I think I prefer the UK
test.

Regards,
Martin Brown
  #25  
Old April 8th 09, 05:38 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography
dadiOH[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default Eyeglasses

Paul Furman wrote:
dadiOH wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:

I only got glasses the first time 3 years ago at
the same place so this is only my second such appointment ever. No
insurance. $600 including $100 more for somewhat 'designer' frames,
progressive bifocals & auto-tinting sunglasses effect. I tend to
avoid doctors, dentists & such and do not generally trust them.


$600??? For a pair of glasses? Add opticians to your list.


$100 for the exam (could have been less without being dialated).
$200 for the designer frames
$310 lenses "Reactint Grey (Poly), Progressive - Illumina"
(includes $130 extra for auto-tint and $100 off for complete pair)
-progressive bifocal is more than straight scrip.


I still think they are doing you. My current progressive glasses (about a
year old) were about $150 with titanium frames & spring loaded temples.
Anti-scratch plastic, no tinting. No idea what I paid for prescription as
it was part of a twice annual eye exam included on my insurance.

Frames have a *HUGE* markup.
___________

1. Draw three vertical line like this... |||
2. Now draw three horizontal lines next to them
3. Take off your glasses and look at the lines

Do either set of three look sharper than the other set? Yes =
astigmatism


Right, we did that test & the horizontal lines were thicker. So, why
doesn't my scrip show that?


Because the guy doing the testing did a lousy job?
________________

They
said something about a free adjustment appointment in a month or
something like that...


To adjust the *frame* fit.


Could be a chance to complain about missing astigmatism though,


I'd be complaining about that *right now*
_______________


Plant specimens: Hastings triplet for 10X, regular magnifying glass
for less power.


Yeah, I've got a little 10x folding triplet hand lens but still miss
having the eyes of a child :-)


I hear you. Until my early 40s (now almost 76) I could focus on stuff one
inch or less from my eye. Very handy. Best I can do now is 18" and that
distance is lousy without glasses because of astigmatiam.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico



  #26  
Old April 8th 09, 05:38 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography
ray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,278
Default Eyeglasses

FWIW - I had reading glasses first prescribed several years ago at the
onset of presbyopia. A couple of years later I needed a change. Since my
distance vision has always been fine (except for a period when I was
diagnosed with diabetes which was out of control), I opted for a pair of
bifocals with top half optimized for compter distance and bottom half for
reading distance. I chose a pair of bifocal presciption sunglasses with
the top half having no correction and bottom half way between the other
two prescriptions - works great for seeing the dashboard.
  #27  
Old April 8th 09, 05:48 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography
TonyCooper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Eyeglasses

On Wed, 08 Apr 2009 17:22:49 +0100, Martin Brown
wrote:

Paul Furman wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:


I didn't get reading glasses until my arms were not long enough to
obtain focus which was about Sph 0.5.

Incidentally I hope the US test includes a routine check for glaucoma
if you are over 40 (it wasn't mentioned).


Yes, that was the fancy new retina scan camera and I guess also the
extra for dilating my eyes to examine inside manually.


In Europe they also do a specific eyeball pressure test and the whole
eye test is free for anyone with a family history of glaucoma.


In my experience in the US, that's always part of what is done by
either an optomotrist or an opthalmologist.

In the UK it is usually done by a mildly annoying device that blasts a
pulse of air at your eye and measures the deflection. You would remember
it.

Compared to the more accurate method used when I lived in Belgium that
required full eyeball contact with a microscope. I think I prefer the UK
test.


Slit lamps used to be equipped with a Haag-Streit tonometer. It's a
device that presses against the eye and measures the rate of outflow
of ocular fluid to determine if the canal is blocked; an indication of
glaucoma. The air-puff tonometer is more commonly used here now, but
it works on the same principle.






Regards,
Martin Brown

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
  #28  
Old April 8th 09, 08:59 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography
David Ruether[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 681
Default Eyeglasses


"Paul Furman" wrote in message ...

Long post, should be of interest in regards to optics for even photographers who do not wear glasses (yet).


Sorry if any of this repeats anything covered earlier..., and also
sorry if some comments offend (I *do* have my strong opinions
on glasses, and how they SHOULD be made...! ;-). See
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/4...ce-glasses.htm
for my approach...

I got new eyeglasses today, progressive bifocals (no line)


I detested "no-lines", with their poor peripheral sharpness and
"depends on the tilt" focus - bleah! I had made four distance lens
corrections (as described in the article above), with the bifocal
insets made smaller and lower than usual (for good "ground
visibility". The flat-tops were properly angled to be invisible
(helped by the nearness of the two powers within a frame side).

and the auto-tint sunglasses thing this time (Reactint grey poly).


Ugh! Sorry! (I could never understand the appeal of "sun" glasses
since they tend to modify colors away from natural, and unless dense,
polarized, UV-filtering, and multicoated, there is little to no "protection".

Vision is very important to me and I asked a lot of questions, so this is my summary to share and I would like to know anything
folks here have to add, confirm, dispute, or comment on.


Um, I did warn you......! ;-)

The appointment was at the chain store Lens Crafters (EyExam of California) and I was a bit concerned about the rushed factory
precision with which my exam was executed... I know I'm being picky but it seemed my questions were an unwelcome intrusion in
their system... anyways, that's just a personal annoyingly picky observation -


I've had exams and also glasses made at such places and I would
say the work was about 50% OK, 50% useless. One time, I met
someone else wandering around the mall also "lost", and we quickly
established that we had come from the same optical place with the
same problem - the glasses were obviously wrong! I went through
their "rote - no questions permitted" exam three times, with the same
wrong outcome! Another place, when I requested to have a pair of
reading/computer glasses made (I usually set these for 1.5 and 2
foot distances), they put the distance prescription in one side, and
gave me the usual nonsense, "Wear them a while - you will get used
to them". Golly, gee!!!

the price was right, fast convenient service and pointed glam treatment like I was a movie star coming in for a face lift. That is
obviously part of the emmployee training. I only got glasses the first time 3 years ago at the same place so this is only my
second such appointment ever. No insurance. $600 including $100 more for somewhat 'designer' frames, progressive bifocals &
auto-tinting sunglasses effect.


Yuh wuz took! 8^(

I tend to avoid doctors, dentists & such and do not generally trust them.


I understand, but there are good ones around - and for doctors,
ask friends, for dentists, do the same plus anyone you see with
good teeth, and for optometrists, the same...;-) THE VERY BEST
eye person I've been to was --
A) VERY thorough, and took his time (and did testing beyond the
usual, like red/green astigmatism)
B) Let me control the apparatus when I wasn't sure of a setting
C) LISTENED TO ME!!! (I wanted those unusual 4-distance glasses)
D) Didn't insist I had some weird disease I knew I didn't (one
big-time doctor did...)
E) Easily spotted the "fixed" floaters in my focus that bother me
(the big-time doctor couldn't see them...)
F) Let me take diopters outside with my camera (which had no
adjustable eyepiece diopter) to check camera focus
G) Was nice, completely accommodating, and the work was excellent
H) The prices were a fraction of yours
I0 Is in my home town, and easy to get an appointment with

It's nice to have a new prescription, it really matters to me to be able to see everything clearly. I lost one lens out of the old
pair & have been struggling with makeshift walgreens reading glasses & such for a week (UGH!). The last set was uneven for left &
right for a reading distance of what I'm now told is tested at 16-inches,


Too close, if you read on your lap or use a computer, but you can
have a second cheap pair made for that.

this exam came out the same for both eyes. Testing them now... looks like the right eye is not as sharp at that 16-inch
distance... hmm... OK that's my first intuitive test, now I see that tilting up fixes the problem in the right eye but not
symmetrically.

Here's the (confusing) data:

2006
sph cyl axis prism add (add for distance)
+1.00 -0.50 157 +1.25 (right)
+0.50 -0.50 077 +1.25 (left)

2009
sph cyl axis prism add (add for reading)
+025 PS +1.50 (right)
+025 PS +1.50 (left)

Note the difference: (add for distance)/(add for reading)
-perhaps I wrote it down wrong in 2006?
For this one I confirmed the math for reading glasses:
+025 distance plus +150 = +1.75 (in walgreens reading glasses terminology).


This doesn't look right at all between the two times. I would consider
having the test done by someone good, then taking the results back
and requesting a refund.

Last time, I was told I had an astigmatism in one or more eyes, I don't recall. That seems to be the cyl/axis data? My
observations above about tilting and asymmetry suggest an asymmetry for which I don't have the knowledge to describe properly. Do
the 2006 numbers explain that or some other situation? Should I complain that this exam was not accurate enough, or just pay more
for a more custom service next time?


The former, not the latter...

They said something about a free adjustment appointment in a month or something like that...


There is nothing to adjust here - and they mean the fitting of the
frames, not what really needs doing!

I didn't like the quick lens switcharoo testing method, I would have preferred a focus ring that I could control.


The final lenses are supplied in incremental powers, so an infinitely
adjustable testing gizmo would not be useful - and sometimes
quick changes are better so your eye/brain doesn't accommodate
too much...

Sometimes I need to focus (mentally) on different aspects of the experience, and coordinate with the optician's timing which was a
bit of a struggle and I wasn't always convinced that the test was nailed in such a fast-paced one-chance interaction.


They should have permitted "redoes" when unsure...

I would have liked to understand better when we were looking for astigmatism or whatever it was, rather than just answering yes/no.
I would offer to tip them $50 or whatever... to go a little slower g if it helped.


"Slower" should be available in terms of repeats.

Distance acuity is measured at about 20 feet, through a mirror in a 10-foot room. Infinity is considered close enough to that, so
it's not worth testing or perhaps impractical indoors. Those are the only distances tested. Anything else can be accomplished by
tilting the progressive bifocals. I asked about closer distances, the reply seemed to be that was just impractical plus my bone
structure places my eyes relatively far apart and in a cross-eyed test I was unable to align my eyes any closer than about 16
inches. This was a noticeable 'fail' in the test sequence.


You may need (and I prefer) to have the near distance setting placed
further out...

The question was asked if I sometimes see double (yes). I have a very difficult time viewing stereo pair photographs, it's near
impossible for me without some kind of aid.

I asked, "what about optimizing for photography and or computer work, because that's super-important for me?" I edit photos on a
26-inch monitor at 20 to 34 inches away, and it's my understanding that an SLR camera simulates a focal distance of about 30
inches.


One meter...

And what about closer viewing, like examining plant specimens for identification? At 45, I miss not being a little kid with razor
sharp vision :-( The reply was that I could get another pair of glasses optimized at that range, even progressive bifocals between
that range.


Or use a hand magnifier. I once tried frames with a second set of lenses
that flipped down, but without multicoating, the reflections were excessive.

My right eye is dominant. I guess that's normal for right-handed people. The asymmetry however seems to give a sharper image at
the 30-inch range in my left eye which seems unfortunate. One interesting test result regarding eye dominance was the peripheral
test where you stare at a dot and click a button when you detect the machine's twitching subtle peripheral flashes... on the left
eye, the right part of my field of vision blacked out sometimes. Apparently this is not unusual, blinking restores the black area.
What's going on is my mind says the left eye doesn't need to worry about the right side so it literally blacks it out. It's
fascinating how much of our vision is the result of our brain's interpretation. It's hard for me to judge things sometimes because
my brain is messing with reality & making all sorts of assumptions & corrections that I'm not aware of. Interesting.


See various articles on my web page...;-)

Last time we talked about anti-scratch coatings because I work outside with muddy hands all the time. I don't know what I got this
time. I asked about glass versus plastic again, because glass is more durable.


Don't make this assumption anymore. The newer plastics are VERY
durable, and lighter and safer than glass. I would never go back to
glass again.

The warning was even more severe this time about glass being a hassle for them and the risk of eye injury in an accident if they
broke into shards. I'd be willing to risk that for better optics, I scratch them to hell in no time and that's no fun to look
through scratched glasses or replace every 6 months.


If you need to do this, uncoated simple bifocals may be the way to
go (cheaper).

I wonder about anti-glare coatings too, now that I think of it. That's a big deal on camera lenses. I'm not independently wealthy
but my vision is extremely important to me and I'd be willing to pay for improvements on my eyeglasses. Maybe I can keep these for
backup and dirty work and get a better custom pair as a more informed consumer?


As with front filters on camera lenses, I'm not convinced that
multicoating on glasses offers much of value...

I brought my camera in, explaining that was something important to my needs and met confused blank stares from both people I
talked with. I could have tested the text size charts with the camera for hours to get it right g. Maybe there's a way to come
up with eyeglass prescription data myself?
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com


Good luck!
David Ruether
www.donferrario.com/ruether


  #29  
Old April 8th 09, 09:17 PM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography
K W Hart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default Eyeglasses


"TonyCooper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 07:53:15 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

Paul Furman wrote:

I only got glasses the first time 3 years ago at
the same place so this is only my second such appointment ever. No
insurance. $600 including $100 more for somewhat 'designer' frames,
progressive bifocals & auto-tinting sunglasses effect. I tend to avoid
doctors, dentists & such and do not generally trust them.


$600??? For a pair of glasses? Add opticians to your list.


I suppose I could find a frame where the cost of frame and lenses
would be $600, but I've never noticed that shelf in the optician's
office.

Glasses in this area start at $100 for a basic frame and single-vision
lenses . There are extra charges for bifocal, anti-scratch-coating
and anti-reflection. Some of the chain opticians (like Lenscrafters)
offer specials on two or more pair with a limited selection of frames.

The above does not include the eye "exam", but some optical stores do
not charge for an eye exam. Some do.

I wear titanium frames with the lenses held in place by fishline
instead of the frame going all the way around the lens. I think the
frames were about $150 (lenses extra) but there was a discount for
buying three pair at once (regular, tinted, and computer glasses) My
computer glasses are standard el-cheapo frames.

My wife's frames were more (but not at the $600 level), but she has
"designer" frames. To her, glasses are face jewelry that improve
vision. Her total cost was around $450 or $500, but she has
progressive bifocals and that adds to the cost.

I don't have the progressive lenses. I've never seen that as an
advantage, and the bifocal "line" doesn't bother me.

My biggest problem with glasses is that I wear single-vision glasses
when I'm on the computer, and these glasses have what would be my
bifocal prescription as the full lens. My distance vision is fuzzy
with these glasses. Sometimes I forget to change glasses when I leave
the computer and walk around the house in these glasses. Everything
is blurred.



My last two or three exams were at the WalMart Vision center. The exam
(including the air puff, and the blinking dots) was about $100, and my
contact lenses cost about $35 each, $70 for the pair. I also suffer from
"short-arm-syndrome" and with each exam, I ask about options. The examiner
(I don't know off-hand if he's an MD or not) has advised against monovision
(one eye corrected for distance, the other for close-up), and most recently
he advised against multivision contacts, as they tend to pop out- they are
thicker at the outer edges. He has always suggested that I go over to the
'drugs' area of the store and check out the reading glasses. I have always
had good success with the cheap 'cheater' glasses at +1.5 or +1.75.

I quit wearing glasses back in the 1970's, and I do not want to go back to
them. I've worn contact lenses daily since then, with little problem. The
best lenses for me were the rigid 'gas-permeable' type.


  #30  
Old April 9th 09, 12:15 AM posted to rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,alt.photography
Bill Graham
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,294
Default Eyeglasses


"jimkramer" wrote in message
...
"Atheist Chaplain" wrote in message
...
"dadiOH" wrote in message
...
Paul Furman wrote:

I only got glasses the first time 3 years ago at
the same place so this is only my second such appointment ever. No
insurance. $600 including $100 more for somewhat 'designer' frames,
progressive bifocals & auto-tinting sunglasses effect. I tend to avoid
doctors, dentists & such and do not generally trust them.

$600??? For a pair of glasses? Add opticians to your list.


$600 is only a middle of the road pair of frames, and depending on types
of lens you could easily ad an extra $200-300 if you go with bi-focal,
photo grey, glass lens, anti-reflective coatings etc.

Maybe in your hemisphere, but $600 is pretty steep in the US, especially
for a very minor correction. I just assumed it was a California Price
Special. Paid $425 for mine with all the goodies and titanium frames.
-Jim

Order a catalog from Hildago. You will save a bundle on your glasses.....

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.