This topic could be an ENDLESS thread of this worked for me and try
that, and find...... I'll leave off the rest of my guidance
doctrine, but dwell upon the S as in simple.
First the problem: aging affects all tissues in the body including
those of the eye and controlling muscles. The 'onset', 'rate' and
'functional endpoint' of aging are individualized except for in
identical twins. (Even therein you will find some differences.)
Emphasis should be placed on the rate. The slope of the aging curve
with time can be linear, sigmoid, etc.
Bottomline: What you see today is what you see today. What correction
you need for optimum vision tomorrow will be different.
Medical - optometric intervention: Finding the ''best'' doc, lenses,
etc., still leaves you adjusted to average conditions, not an optimum
for the viewfinder. The correction can be divided into all visual
functions, two such as with bifocals or the use of reading glasses,
tri-, gradient, etc. The fancier the Rx, the thinner your wallet and
limits to beer drinking - - not necessarily more useful vision.
Option for self-guided correction for a photographer: To each their
own, but rather than spend lots of $ on 'gradients', etc., each
INDIVIDUAL requires for a given camera/viewfinder correction = x to
optimize their use of that system - not a gradient. In some cases, one
can spend sufficient money to purchase dioptic correction accessories
for the camera. Today, there is a more Simple approach made cost
effective and facile for change in concert with aging, i.e. staying on
the slope. Basic good quality (not those with all the advertised
goober functions) contact lenses are CHEAP. You can buy them on the
www (probably not from John Summerville). Ask your optometrist /
opthamologist for several 'Trial Pak' lenses in three incremental steps
(typically 0.25 diopter) above AND below that used for your everyday
Rx. (These 'Trial Pak' lenses are supplied free by the manufacturer.)
Advise your professional that you only need this gradated series for
ONE eye, the one you normally use with the viewfinder. Purchase three
lens storage/disinfectant containers. (For effectiveness and
performance I like the simple peroxide system of 'AO Sept'.) Since you
will be using different lenses, use a permanent marker or tape to
identify each of the six compartments.
The next step will be obvious to this OM group. Set up a test
situation with a tripod and the lens which has become a focusing
challenge. (Suggest a prime rather than zoom to eliminate issues unique
to the latter.) Start with your everyday Rx lens. Sequentially work
your way in incremental steps + and - your Rx. Most likely, you will
find the optimum for photo work to be different than the everyday Rx.
Take notes and SAVE those lenses which are not optimum - - today. Next
week, you may need to change........ Those who use glasses may find a
contact lens solution for one eye which not only meets photo
requirements, but eliminates the obstacle issues. To state the
obvious: Yes, you should probably do this incremental testing with
each different model of camera to determine the optimum contact lens
for that viewfinder. Good news: a few contact lenses in incremental
strengths is a whole lot cheaper than camera equipment accessories.
For those who cringe........ Never fear. Necessity will teach
excellence at removing and popping a contact lens into an eye while on
the move. Comfort level is when you can do on the freeway at 70mph
while turning up the volume on Patsy Cline in the middle of it all.
This is an OM type solution if it works for you. LIGHT WEIGHT AND
FITS IN THE POCKET! .......even 'S.'.
Cheers,
Bill
Begin forwarded message:
I was directed to a really top-notch optometrist a few years ago,
after a bad experience with a "doc-in-the-box" type. Not only is she
cool (she drives rally and her personal ride is a Cooper S), but she
is very, very good at get the script down. It is worth seeking out a
top-notch eye doc and paying a bit more. In my case, I got gas-perm
lenses that are bifocal (more like multi-focal, actually), and they
work great. Not eveyrone can wear them, and they aren't cheap. But
they are super.
Earl
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 11/23/2003 at 12:24 AM Lama-Jim L'Hommedieu wrote:
In a word, "yes". In a sentence, at about 43-45 years of age, your
eyes
go through a kind of 2nd puberty but there's nothing new
and exciting to look forward to with this change.
Conventional wisdom is that the focusing screen is "perceived" as
being at
infinity. The Shipman book says it's more like a meter.
I think he says that for middle aged people (I'm 47) it's too close
for
"distance vision" and too far away for "close vision",
implying that gradually progressive glasses are the way to go.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|