Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: OT On hazards of aging

Subject: [OM] Re: OT On hazards of aging
From: "Wayne Culberson" <waynecul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:42:46 -0400
I'm perhaps not up to speed on all the terms you're using. If by 
"progressives" you're asking about the bifocals, mine are the ones that have 
the visible line. I've gotten used to that type, and didn't want to change 
to the others.

I also bought the flex frames, and insisted they be made of titanium, as the 
last pair I've worn for 6 years (titanium) are the first ones I've owned 
that don't corrode away the metal frames.

As for the tradeoff argument, I can't see any difference between the edge 
thickness of the new glasses versus my old ones (frames are about the same 
size), so I'm not buying the argument that you have to accept blur for thin 
and light lenses.

As to dealing with problems, a few years ago I bought a pair of glasses 
that, when I put them on, were just awful. They were so bad that I 
practically fell getting out the door of the store. I tried driving home 
with them on, but the telephone poles were all leaning at about 30 degree 
angles. Things round looked oval, and it was practically impossible to walk 
on slopes or across a dip like a shallow ditch. I repeatedly complained for 
weeks, as I just could not wear them. If I closed the left eye, they didn't 
seem too bad. I was told over and over that I just had to get used to them. 
Finally, after MUCH firm insistence from me, the optometrist agreed to 
retest my eyes. If it turned out the same I would have to pay again. It 
turned out that he had reversed the numbers for the left eye when he had 
written out the prescription. The aggravating part was, he never apologized 
for his mistake. Only the receptionist finally admitted to me what had 
happened. I often thought, What if that had been a child who received those 
mistaken glasses? So yes, I am not being rude or abusive, but I am pretty 
stubborn that they make them right. I've been through this before.
Wayne


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Moose" <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <olympus@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 8:48 PM
Subject: [OM] Re: OT On hazards of aging


> 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
> ============================================== 


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

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