Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: OT On hazards of aging

Subject: [OM] Re: OT On hazards of aging
From: keith_w <keith_w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 17:22:17 -0800

Hi Moose!

I agree with all you've said, except...
I don't know what to expect when I get out of cataract surgery!
I should have almost perfect eyesight, but who knows?
In addition to the cataract, I had mirror image astigmatism in each eye.
Will that be fixed, in the corrected eye, with the new lens?
I would certainly think so...
Crossin' my fingers!
Operation about the end of this month.
I'm hoping for x-ray vision!  ;-)

keith

Moose wrote:

> Wayne Culberson wrote:
>>
>> Wish I could buy glasses for $50. I just bought a new pair that cost me 
>> almost $400, 
> Whoa, hold up there. I said $300 over 6 years meant a yearly cost of 
> $50. And I didn't buy new frames that time, which would have brought me 
> about up to $400. The new pair I bought last year cost about $500 with 
> new super light, flexible frames and photochromic tint added to the 
> double aspheric lenses and AR and hard coatings. I guess they have to 
> last 10 years now? :-)
>> which were supposedly going to be a bit better than the old 
>> ones that I've had for 6 years. However, the new ones are worse, as anything 
>> outside of almost perfectly straight on is blurry. 
> a. That's bull. Proper high end aspherics should have a wider sweet spot 
> at middle distances than before. At least mine do.
> 
> b. Make them really check that they got the prescription right. My new 
> ones were just not right. so I took them back. They checked them and 
> said they were right. I insisted. Since they had also done the eye exam, 
> I got them (gentle persuasion and persistence, not explosion) to redo 
> the eye test, then one lens. Now the prescription was fine, but the 
> photochromic effect was almost nil. Back again, make 'em again, and all 
> is well.
> 
> Ya gotta be your own advocate.
>> The optical store I bought them from is arguing that that is normal, as they 
>> are aspherical lenses, whereas my older ones are spherical. Their argument 
>> is that aspherical lenses are better when you look perfectly straight on, 
>> and can be 
>> made thinner and lighter, but the trade-off is that when you cast your eyes 
>> to the side without turning your head, they are more blurry. Is that true? 
>>   
> Need more definition of the situation here. Are the prior set 
> progressives? If not, then yes the sweet spot will be relatively 
> narrower. With progressives, you do focus on things with head movement, 
> both up and down for focal distance and back and forth to get the object 
> in the focal sweet spot.
> 
> I was given some spherical progressives some years ago when I ordered 
> bifocals. They said I'd love them and there would be no additional 
> charge.I was back the next day to get the bifocals. I could not stand 
> them. The more expensive aspherics I got a few years later were 
> completely different, and completely converted me.
>> So do aspherical camera lenses give pics only sharp in the center? 
> No, the optical problems are completely different. The subject and 
> film/sensor are always square to the optical center line (except in tilt 
> lenses), not the case with our eyes and retinas.
>> I'm not buying it yet and am arguing for replacement lenses. They are 
>> arguing that I 
>> have to learn to always turn my head, rather than my eyes. Well, I'm too old 
>> to turn my head far enough to do a shoulder check, for instance.
>>   
> Well, they may not be for you. Although the sweet spot on newer, high 
> end ones is larger than before, it still requires head movement, I just 
> don't notice except when the subject comes up like now.
> 
> Moose


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz