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.
>
>I've found that I see *critically* at 3' only when looking through a
>single *very* small patch of my right lens. Unfortunately, the
>eye relief on my OM-PC was such that I had to mash my nose against the
>back and twist sideways to see the screen. With that
>posture, my eye was not lining up at all with the very small patch on my
>right lens. In other words, after obsessive study, I
>understand I can't focus my PC with the new prescription.
>
>Although it doesn't agree with Shipman's perspective, I found I COULD
>still focus critically with my old prescription glasses. So
>now I use the old glasses for shooting (but not driving or reading). This
>is probably much more detail than you want but I figured
>this all out for myself and I'm pretty darned disappointed that I didn't
>get any advance warning on this topic.
>
>When I went in for my annual checkup, why didn't the doctor tell me about
>near-vision falling apart at age 44, like clockwork? When
>I saw the eye doctor for an exam why didn't he have better answers for my
>detailed and repeated questions about using a camera?
>When I ordered the new prescription, why didn't the professional have
>better answers for my detailed and repeated questions either?
>He tried to steer me towards a sharp distinction between near and far.
>
>So Lars, you're not alone but it is not easy or pretty. I know you've
>been wearing contacts, but you could have a rectangular lens
>cut and use it in Eyecup1 or Eyecup2. Or you could do what I did: Sell
>your OM bodies and buy a used Canon EOS 55.
>
>Lama
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Lars Bundesen" <lars.bundesen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> I am 45 and getting close to the time I need reading glasses, I am
>afraid.
>> I am shortsighted and use contact lenses.
>>
>> I normally have no problem focusing with my Om cameras, except in low
>light
>> conditions, especially with a zoom. I normally use the 1-14 screen with
>an
>> OM 4 T.
>> But I'd like to know if deteriorating ability to focus on close things
>> affects your ability to focus with a camera?
>>
>> Then I'd even more strongly consider going digital and AF, at least as a
>> supplement.
>
>
>< 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 >
< 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 >
|