You and Your Glasses

[ruben]

hi Tom,

This is a rather personal question, but I am curious about how do deal with your glass wearing, reading camera and lens settings and view through your viewfinders.

Cheers,
Ruben

[sojournerphoto]

I wear them and put up with it usually. I also occasionaly wear contact lenses. On the Zorki I have tunnel vision, but the dslrs are much better. Even there contacts improve the viewin the viewfinder.

Mike

[f/stopblues]

I loathe wearing my glasses while shooting unless it's with my MF with waist level finder. LOATHE it. I like getting right up to the viewfinder. As a result, the sharpness of the final photo is always a vast improvement over reality for me :)

[mabelsound]

I got contacts specifically for photography. When I'm going to go out shooting, I put 'em on.

None of us are Tom so far though. In fact, I'm shocked that Tom hasn't invented some kind of universal glasses-wearer camera hotshoe accessory that solves the whole problem.

[Joe Brugger]

Can't even find my camera without my glasses -- been like that forever -- and can't get fitted for contacts, says the doc. I wear lightweight lenses (bifocal fades) in Flexon frames (spendy) and use cameras with big bright finders like the Nikon F100 and the Minolta CLE. Stay away from cameras with scratchy eyepieces.

[lewis44]

I wear glasses, but put a diopter on the camera eyepiece.. My glasses have cable ends so I just slide them up on my forehead where they stay easily and focus as if I did not have them on.
I shoot mostly with an M7 0.85 and can use my 35mm on it that way and still see outside the frame lines. Granted not much outside, But enough to see if I'm framing is the way I want it
I really keep a 50 on the M7almost always, but use the same set-up on an M4-P and leave the 35 on it.
Probably looks a little dorkie to see a guy with his speck's on his forehead, but frankly "I don't give a damn"

[Tom A]

I wish I could solve this problem easily. Unfortunately I have very strong glasses (-10 to -12 diopters) and I am blind as a bat without them - and I lack the bats ultrasonice distance judgement!
One reason I have stayed with rangefinders is that over long time I have developed a tecnique for shooting with them. I do push my glasses up to the viewfinder (and scratch my left eyeglass - replaced every 2 years) until I can see the 35 frame in a M2 (this could explain my fetish for that model?).
The good thing was that I started wearing glasses at 3-4 years of age ( I had no idea that the leaves on the ground had anything to do with trees - never could see them "up there") and when I started shooting (at 14) it become natural to go to the M's.
I am not a canditate for contacts (tried it) or surgery either. By now I have resigned to my fate and keep replacing left lenses in the eyeglasses instead (almost Leica price, but made by Zeiss- $7-800 a pop). I had Zeiss Canada make them up for me as multifocals, but with the "infinity" line dropped slightly on the left one to correspond with the cameras "aerial image".
Yes, diopters could help, but as my vision is only a couple of feet longer on the other eye without glasses on - I would have no idea what I was looking at!
I think there is a correlation between bad eyesight and the desire to take photographs. Most of the shooters I know have eyeproblem, from before becoming photographers! Myopia is common. Could it be that we print something and then, dragging our nose on the print and studying the details we fulfill some desire for perfect vision?
There is also a correlation between left eye shooters and nearsightedness! Because of the Rapidwinder I have been in touch with 1000's of M shooters over the years and we seem to share the same affliction. Cant see worth a damned and heavily biased towards the left eye!
There is light at the end of the tunnel though. The President of Cosina, Mr Kobayashi is an eyeglass wearer and he judges a viewfinder by how well he can use it - with his glasses on. Hence the Zeiss ZI finder, the R3 finder and the wide angle R4 finder! Truth be told, I have never seen all four lines of a 28 finder in a M4P or 0,72 M6/MP at the same time. It does work in the 0,58 though!
How do the rest of you cope? Would be a great thread to as we are plentiful and as we advance in age, we will become more and more of a target market.
Tom - peering pathetically at the monitor.

[charjohncarter]

OK, Ruben, I have glasses I have to take them off to focus any cameras. As it turns out I was shooting one of my stock shots for film-developer comparisons, and when I walked out of the tall grass to the gravel road I had my glasses off. I almost stepped on a snake. I had a wide angle lens on a SLR so without my glasses I had lean way over almost to the ground to photograph this snake.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3144/2588042606_79a04072a0.jpg?v=0

I didn't realize what it was until I developed the film. That if you don't know is a Rattlesnake (do you have them in Israel?). Yikes!

[raid]

I use glasses rarely and only for small print reading in dim light.
The eyes of Bedouins are excellent, so maybe I got a good gene?
Raid ... The Desert Photographer!

[FallisPhoto]

hi Tom,

This is a rather personal question, but I am curious about how do deal with your glass wearing, reading camera and lens settings and view through your viewfinders.

Cheers,
Ruben

It's just one of several crosses I have to bear.

[FallisPhoto]

OK, Ruben, I have glasses I have to take them off to focus any cameras. As it turns out I was shooting one of my stock shots for film-developer comparisons, and when I walked out of the tall grass to the gravel road I had my glasses off. I almost stepped on a snake. I had a wide angle lens on a SLR so without my glasses I had lean way over almost to the ground to photograph this snake.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3144/2588042606_79a04072a0.jpg?v=0

I didn't realize what it was until I developed the film. That if you don't know is a Rattlesnake (do you have them in Israel?). Yikes!

Is that a mohave rattlesnake? Looks like one. Could have turned out very badly indeed.

[nikonhswebmaster]

I wish I could solve this problem easily. Unfortunately I have very strong glasses (-10 to -12 diopters) and I am blind as a bat without them - and I lack the bats ultrasonice distance judgement!

I cannot even imagine a -12! That is a tough prescription to correct on a camera with the naked eye.

I am a -6 (20/800) so I can add -2 to most cameras and use them without glasses, since most adjust to -4.

I correct to about 20/70 (the fourth line on an eye chart).

I like putting my glasses on my head to shoot, I can see the finders much better, I usually use a cord on my glasses to keep them off the ground.

[Tom A]

Ouch. I haven't had to deal with rattle snakes. I like your idea of taking a shot of it and then finding out what it was! True photographic spirit!
I once lost a car on a beach parking when my glasses got knocked off by a wave. My spares were in my Fiat Topolino (matching grey to the sand and brush it was parked in), Took me an hour to find it - somebody took pity on the guy wandering in circles and asked if they could help! It was a beach rarely frequented by humans. Plenty of sheep, but they were less than helpful!
Fred, if you think -12 is bad. At age 5 I had -14 and -15! My eyedoctor told me that as I grew older they will improve. Problem is that I have to reach about 280 years of age to achieve 20/20 vision - so, only 215 to go!

[kshapero]

I wear small trifocals and I never even thought of it as a potential problem until reading this thread. I just slam my right eye with glasses on, up to the VF and shoot away. My eyepeice ring is rubber coated which might be why I haven't had to change my lenses in 14 years. I dunno may be I am screwing up somewhere on this but all seems well with me.

[charjohncarter]

FallisPhoto, I was, of course, as cool as a cucumber, but I thought it was a common gopher snake. It was one of those desert rattlers. Very dry here this year so they are coming down out of the hills, at least that is what I hear. Interestingly, very little concern from my family, except recriminations on my intelligence. You know, 'you shouldn't have been there' or 'open your eyes,' 'is the estate in order,' etc.

[charjohncarter]

Tom, I lost my car way before I wore glasses.

[sepiareverb]

I'm in a real sweet spot right now, I needed glasses to see any distance since age 12, but as I've aged that has improved, I now need no glasses at all, but as my vision continues to reach farther out I am just beginning to lose the up close, can still just barely read the phone book. A visit to the eye doctor friday, we'll see what he has in store for me.

Not being able to see the snake would have gotten me in a lot of trouble more than once- I've been close to several rattlesnakes over the years wandering around the high desert of New Mexico.

[Tom A]

Yeh, the snake does reinforce my belief that it is better to wear glasses and never see those pesky 28 frames than not wearing them!
I have tried a variety of "soft" thingamajigs to save my left eyeglass lens, but they are usually more trouble than they are worth. On the M2 they tend to push the glasses a bit too far back and you loose the 35 frame. Easier to have the glass replaced once every two years.
I dont use SLR's much anymore, but for years my "commercial" stuff was done with Nikon F's and F2's and I usually had one or two bodies fitted with the large sportsfinder. Heavy bugger, but really great for 50's and longer lenses. Eyerelief from 4-5 inches away.
I still have one on a F that is used for macro work. Comfortable to focus and, though big, on a tripod it doesn't matter.
Only other SLR that I use is a couple of Leicaflex/Leicaflex SL's - they have one of the brightest finders of any camera, even today. Again mostly macro work, or when I feel like a longer view, the 180f3.4 Apo Telyt or even the 400/560 Telyts. The latter often used with a Leica to Nikon F adapter and the sports finder.

[ampguy]

Myopia may have genetic influences, but definitely has environmental influences, as it has risen significantly over the past century and decades as reading and computer use (nearsighted vision) has increased.

Using glasses for myopia early, and constantly getting stronger glasses every few years is not an optimal solution, as it does not allow your eye muscles to strengthen naturally to retain some of their strength for further out clear vision.

[Rob-F]

Tom (and everyone): Get a can of Liquid Electrical Tape. It's rubber/plastic in liquid form. You apply it and it dries in a thin layer. I used it on the eyepiece of my M2 and M3, and now I don't scratch my glasses. It needs a little practice to apply well, as it's rather gloppy. It comes with a brush. I let most of the liquid drip off the brush back into the can before delicately flowiing it onto the eyepiece. I got mine in Home Depot. In comes in various colors, but I used black, of course. A very thin layer is all you need. I recommend the stuff!

[f/stopblues]

I found this picture a friend took of me while shooting with my sadly departed R2A and Ultron 35/1.7 <sigh>

This is my usual shooting stance I think.. scrunched up face, glasses in my mouth. Yummy!

http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/8/27/188909/camera1.jpg

[bcostin]

Glasses all the time. I've been severely nearsighted with astigmatism since I was a kid, so I wear glasses all the time. Removing them engages my built-in Noctilux bokeh simulator. :) I can get by in familiar settings and read things up to about six inches away but photography would be pretty much hopeless.

After a while you do get a feel for the part of the finder you can't see, and you can to move your eye around a bit to take more in. Not perfect, but good enough for me. I've finally stopped worrying about the inevitable scratches on my lenses, and I don't even notice them most of the time. I'm due to get a new prescription later this month and have been thinking about relegating the old pair to special camera duty, but I doubt that I'd stick to that arrangement for very long.

[Tom A]

in my case, the myopia was genetically ordered! It jumpaed a generation or two, but most of my ancestors had a rather fuzzy view of life! They became politicians!!!!
When you are down to around -13 and -15 diopters for correction, only glasses help and in the 40's and 50's - they were coke bottle style. I got beaten up by some bully's as a kid, until I learned to fight back. I usually took of my glasses ( didn't want to break them) and decked everything within my reach (including a kindergarten teacher who tried to break up the fight).
I tried various compounds on the ring on the ocular of the M2 and didn't like the feel. Because of the glasses, the compound works as a "brake" and kept pulling the glasses sideways. I do use high index glass in them as they can be made thinner. Plastic lenses, however good they are, still are to thick.
I still read without glasses, but the book is within inches of my nose. There is a trade off with multofocals. You can compensate for reasonable close up and distance, but reading distance is difficult.
One advantage though, is that at extremely close distance (3-4 inches) my eyessight is sharp and slightly magnified. Great for camera swap meets. The seller extols the virtue of his merchandise - I take of my glasses and find dings and dents he hasen't seen!
Piece of trivia: Take off the ocular on a older M3 (it has a lens element in it) and the correction is in the neighbourhood of -5 or-6 diopters and even I can use it (after a fashion).

[rbsinto]

I'm nearsighted, started wearing glasses at about 13 or 14, and now at 60 wear bifocals.
I tried prescription lenses made to fit the screw-in eyepieces for my Nikons, but couldn't see anything when I took the camera away from my eye. I wear contact lenses, but only to play hockey and found that they were a strain to use with cameras. Finally, I bowed to the inevitable and just started wearing my glasses when shooting. To keep the left lens from getting scratched, I got the round rubber-coated eyepieces for my SLR's. With the rangefinders, I put a bead of clear silicone on the surface of the eyepieces which cushions the lens from scratching.
What bothers me now is the grease from my skin that gets on the upper middle corners of the eyeglass lenses when I press against the back of the cameras. I'm thinking of asking an Optometrist if I can get lenses with the upper inside corners scalloped out to eliminate this minor annoyance.

[ChrisN]

Tom, try the plastic eyepiece guard ring for Leica M, from DAG. I have one on the M4, and it protects my spectacle lenses but doesn't stick, as you describe. http://www.dagcamera.com/leica_m.htm

I have worn specs since my early teenage years; now into multi-focals. It's a nuisance, but I cope better with than without. For shooting in dim conditions I'm almost to the point where I might have to start relying on autofocus.

[Tuolumne]

Tom (and everyone): Get a can of Liquid Electrical Tape. It's rubber/plastic in liquid form. You apply it and it dries in a thin layer. I used it on the eyepiece of my M2 and M3, and now I don't scratch my glasses. It needs a little practice to apply well, as it's rather gloppy. It comes with a brush. I let most of the liquid drip off the brush back into the can before delicately flowiing it onto the eyepiece. I got mine in Home Depot. In comes in various colors, but I used black, of course. A very thin layer is all you need. I recommend the stuff!

I use a tooth pick to apply liquid electrical tape to my camera view finder rings. I can't imagine using the brush that comes with the can. It is HUGE and would make quite a mess of the camera no matter how much you let drip off. A tooth pick gives you very fine flow control. You have to apply the fluid so it warps around the finder ring - otherwise it will peel off after very little use.

/T

[Tuolumne]

Tom, try the plastic eyepiece guard ring for Leica M, from DAG. I have one on the M4, and it protects my spectacle lenses but doesn't stick, as you describe. http://www.dagcamera.com/leica_m.htm

I have worn specs since my early teenage years; now into multi-focals. It's a nuisance, but I cope better with than without. For shooting in dim conditions I'm almost to the point where I might have to start relying on autofocus.

This is the best plastic ring available. I use them on some of my Leicas, too. The fit is quite tight. Once on, I have found you have to crack the ring to get it off. Although, there's no reason you should ever need to. I was trying to move the ring to another camera which is when I discovered it cracked upon removal. :(

/T

[visiondr]

Myopia may have genetic influences, but definitely has environmental influences, as it has risen significantly over the past century and decades as reading and computer use (nearsighted vision) has increased.

Using glasses for myopia early, and constantly getting stronger glasses every few years is not an optimal solution, as it does not allow your eye muscles to strengthen naturally to retain some of their strength for further out clear vision.

Eye muscles, as you call the ciliary muscle, have little to do with the development of myopia. The ciliary body simply forces the crystalline lens of the eye to change shape and therefore allow focusing up close. Camera lenses (or elements therein) shift fore and aft to allow changes in focal planes. That, of course, would be cartoonish in the human eye. Myopia is the condition where the axial length of the eye or the corneal curvature (thus power) is excessive.


There is, however, some truth in your statement about environmental influences. It is felt that about 70% of causation of myopia is genetically determined. The rest is likely environmental. Consider this, we humans have been on this planet for at least 200k years. And we've only been doing consistent, long-term near work for the last 100 years. Before that, most people were illiterate and worked at jobs that gave them at least some breaks from near focus. Humans are not designed to live and work in enclosed spaces, reading small text and working at computers (or contributing to online photography forums for that matter). Studies of more traditional societies (one involving Alaska Inuit in the 40s and 50s comes to mind) show very few individuals with myopia. The vast majority are either emmetropic or hyperopic (far sighted).

[nikonhswebmaster]

Myopia may have genetic influences, but definitely has environmental influences, as it has risen significantly over the past century and decades as reading and computer use (nearsighted vision) has increased.

Using glasses for myopia early, and constantly getting stronger glasses every few years is not an optimal solution, as it does not allow your eye muscles to strengthen naturally to retain some of their strength for further out clear vision.

That has not been my experience, my eyes have gone from -6 to -5 in the last 10 years, so rather than getting worse they are getting better.

This happened once before at about 45 my eyes improved by about -1.

Very few people over 45 can focus their eyes much at all. Almost everyone will get "stuck" at distance, and buy reading glasses for close up. Even the nearsighted (like me) will have to have near correction if we want to keep our glasses on. What I do instead, however, is take my glasses off to read, and use the computer. Now that I use an LCD, I no longer worry about being too close.

[AshenLight]

I had successful Lasik surgery last October. My vision went from needing a -6 correction to 20/20 uncorrected. Actually, under the right conditions I'm 20/15 uncorrected. It has really made a significant difference in every area especially photography. For anyone who may have been thinking about it but were hesitant, the new blade less, wavefront correction is really amazing.

[visiondr]

Using glasses for myopia early, and constantly getting stronger glasses every few years is not an optimal solution, as it does not allow your eye muscles to strengthen naturally to retain some of their strength for further out clear vision.

One more thing; the muscle in your eye that allows for focusing (the ciliary body) does NOT respond to training like your biceps do. They are completely different kinds of muscle. The ciliary body is more similar to the muscles in your gastrointestinal tract. They just work and really don't fatigue easily. The flip side is that these types of muscles don't get stronger with use or weaker with disuse. It would be like suggesting that someone eat rocks and gravel to strengthen their bowels! :D

People confuse and make a causal relationship between increasing myopia in young adolescence and increasingly strong prescriptions to "correct" myopia. There is no evidence of cause and effect. Glasses and contact lenses simply mimic emmetropia (they allow passive focus at distance). In other words, ophthalmic lenses turn the myope into someone whose eyes act like a person who doesn't need glasses. They don't prevent the progression of myopia. That said, ophthalmologists and optometrists work hard to prevent overcorrecting their myopic patients. It may be the case that overcorrection (lenses that are too strong) is related to myopic progression. This, however, is yet to be proven. And, being of scientific bent, I'm inclined to wait for evidence.

[ampguy]

But I think it is rare, and possible that your earlier prescriptions were too strong, but it does show that it may be possible for eyes to get better, even with someone in their 40s.

Did you by chance go for awhile not using your stronger -6 glasses all the time?


That has not been my experience, my eyes have gone from -6 to -5 in the last 10 years, so rather than getting worse they are getting better.

This happened once before at about 45 my eyes improved by about -1.

Very few people over 45 can focus their eyes much at all. Almost everyone will get "stuck" at distance, and buy reading glasses for close up. Even the nearsighted (like me) will have to have near correction if we want to keep our glasses on. What I do instead, however, is take my glasses off to read, and use the computer. Now that I use an LCD, I no longer worry about being too close.

[ampguy]

I have only my own experience to go by, and my reviewing of the studies of myopia. I have run my history through several eye doctors over several decades, and they've agreed with me.

If you want to email or call me, I'd be pleased to tell you my history and the results of my last 4 exams. We'll probably still disagree, but I believe you'll end up agreeing that the results of my vision history are not completely uncommon to what you see in your practice.

One more thing; the muscle in your eye that allows for focusing (the ciliary body) does NOT respond to training like your biceps do. They are completely different kinds of muscle. The ciliary body is more similar to the muscles in your gastrointestinal tract. They just work and really don't fatigue easily. The flip side is that these types of muscles don't get stronger with use or weaker with disuse. It would be like suggesting that someone eat rocks and gravel to strengthen their bowels! :D

People confuse and make a causal relationship between increasing myopia in young adolescence and increasingly strong prescriptions to "correct" myopia. There is no evidence of cause and effect. Glasses and contact lenses simply mimic emmetropia (they allow passive focus at distance). In other words, ophthalmic lenses turn the myope into someone whose eyes act like a person who doesn't need glasses. They don't prevent the progression of myopia. That said, ophthalmologists and optometrists work hard to prevent overcorrecting their myopic patients. It may be the case that overcorrection (lenses that are too strong) is related to myopic progression. This, however, is yet to be proven. And, being of scientific bent, I'm inclined to wait for evidence.

[visiondr]

Unless you somehow come up with a miracle that shortens the axial length of your eye or flattens your cornea (that's what LASIK does) then no amount of "relaxation" will cause any significant myopic regression. That is predicated, of course, on having an accurate spectacle or contact lens prescription and no bizarre accommodative pathology. A person who is overcorrected may very well "improve" with time (and more accurate prescriptions). Again, the evidence is underwhelming for spontaneous significant myopic regression. If some form of change in ophthalmic lenses or behavior could be proven to work for more than a tiny fraction of patients, and could be marketed, I'd be richer than Bill Gates. I and many other vision professionals have attempted reduction of myopia through undercorrecting patients. It simply doesn't work consistently. Isolated anecdotal cases of spontaneous myopic regression do not make for sound science. Though, I'm happy for those patients who've had even a modicum of success.

[ampguy]

You and I both know that the vision industry reaps billions from [over]prescribing newer prescriptions with trivial changes, as well as the mark-up of frames by 200% or so. I've bought so many glasses that I now buy my glasses at 39dollarglasses.com. My last two doctors said they were as good quality as anything they had in the store for < $200.

Unless you somehow come up with a miracle that shortens the axial length of your eye or flattens your cornea (that's what LASIK does) then no amount of "relaxation" will cause any significant myopic regression. That is predicated, of course, on having an accurate spectacle or contact lens prescription and no bizarre accommodative pathology. A person who is overcorrected may very well "improve" with time (and more accurate prescriptions). Again, the evidence is underwhelming for spontaneous significant myopic regression. If some form of change in ophthalmic lenses or behavior could be proven to work for more than a tiny fraction of patients, and could be marketed, I'd be richer than Bill Gates. I and many other vision professionals have attempted reduction of myopia through undercorrecting patients. It simply doesn't work consistently. Isolated anecdotal cases of spontaneous myopic regression do not make for sound science. Though, I'm happy for those patients who've had even a modicum of success.

[nikonhswebmaster]

Yep -- the brick and mortar stores in NYC at total thieves. "39" is great for computer glasses, although I have also bought Armani with very thin lenses and Pentax coating for under $350 online.

[visiondr]

You and I both know that the vision industry reaps billions from [over]prescribing newer prescriptions with trivial changes, as well as the mark-up of frames by 200% or so. I've bought so many glasses that I now buy my glasses at 39dollarglasses.com. My last two doctors said they were as good quality as anything they had in the store for < $200.

I'm not familiar with that company. I do know that simple single vision ophthalmic lenses are not expensive to manufacture and they're not difficult to make accurately. Frame markups are high, then again, so are thousands of other products out there. Have you ever purchased blades for your razor? :bang: Of course, that's an extreme example. But there's such a thing as a free market. If everyone thought internet eyeglass sales were a great thing, then no one would sell any other way. Some consumers want actual personal service and are willing to pay a bit more for that. I suspect that 39dollarglasses.com won't do adjustments for you (how could they adjust your glasses and frames - after all, they're on the internet). Then again, if a frame craps out at a very inconvenient time, it's OK because you're only paying $39. However, as in all things, your mileage may vary.

As to overprescribing, I'll admit that probably does happen with a tiny number of unscrupulous practitioners. However, I suspect the vast majority of incorrect prescriptions are due to either negligence or incompetence or both. Doing a careful refraction takes time. Doing a more accurate refraction via a dilated exam takes more time. Time is money. And that is, for some, is enough of an incentive to cut corners. Others (again, as I suspect) just don't think their techniques are flawed or don't think that overprescribing is a bad thing. I happen to think that it is a bad thing and I don't do it. I think the take home message is that overprescribing is not some racket of colluding practitioners eager to screw their patients. That sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory.

[ampguy]

My favorite B&M glasses store is Glitter Optics off of Union Square in SF. It's family owned and run, and if I could afford it, I'd buy all of my glasses there.

As visiondr notes, they offer service and adjustments well worth it if you don't know how to adjust yourself or measure PD, etc.


Yep -- the brick and mortar stores in NYC at total thieves. "39" is great for computer glasses, although I have also bought Armani with very thin lenses and Pentax coating for under $350 online.

[ampguy]

I have purchased razor blades at times I didn't have my panasonic wet/dry available, and felt completely screwed by having to pay for the blades :D

I'm glad you don't overprescribe and acknowledge that it does happen. I personally believe that myopia is 90% environmental, and maybe 10% genetic. It is a multifactor disease.

Consider that 70-90% of Asian children have myopia, and only 10-20% of German and Australian children and you have to look at the prescribing behaviors and studying behaviors.

Genetics were ruled out in one study among Chinese children who were raised in different environments but had similar known loci thought to be related to myopia.

Also, several studies of mainland China versus Taiwan studies indicate that juvenile myopia has strong environmental influences.

I think your 70% genetic bias is very high.


I'm not familiar with that company. I do know that simple single vision ophthalmic lenses are not expensive to manufacture and they're not difficult to make accurately. Frame markups are high, then again, so are thousands of other products out there. Have you ever purchased blades for your razor? :bang: Of course, that's an extreme example. But there's such a thing as a free market. If everyone thought internet eyeglass sales were a great thing, then no one would sell any other way. Some consumers want actual personal service and are willing to pay a bit more for that. I suspect that 39dollarglasses.com won't do adjustments for you (how could they adjust your glasses and frames - after all, they're on the internet). Then again, if a frame craps out at a very inconvenient time, it's OK because you're only paying $39. However, as in all things, your mileage may vary.

As to overprescribing, I'll admit that probably does happen with a tiny number of unscrupulous practitioners. However, I suspect the vast majority of incorrect prescriptions are due to either negligence or incompetence or both. Doing a careful refraction takes time. Doing a more accurate refraction via a dilated exam takes more time. Time is money. And that is, for some, is enough of an incentive to cut corners. Others (again, as I suspect) just don't think their techniques are flawed or don't think that overprescribing is a bad thing. I happen to think that it is a bad thing and I don't do it. I think the take home message is that overprescribing is not some racket of colluding practitioners eager to screw their patients. That sounds a lot like a conspiracy theory.

[nikonhswebmaster]

My favorite B&M glasses store is Glitter Optics off of Union Square in SF. It's family owned and run, and if I could afford it, I'd buy all of my glasses there.

As visiondr notes, they offer service and adjustments well worth it if you don't know how to adjust yourself or measure PD, etc.

Eyeglass stores are so damned secretive about Pupil Distance, insist that your eye doctor do it for you next time. They don't do it because they think they are stepping on the toes of the optician. It is a simple measurement that never changes, unless you are run over by a truck. Some folks with odd spacing may need a left and right distance.

Some opticians measure me at 63 but some want to go with 32L-31R. I have always just stuck with 63. If you get close glasses normally that is 3~4 less in my case 60 is fine. The fact that these guys are now selling a pair of lenses for more than a Nikon 50 1.4 is ridiculous.

[ampguy]

I have some friends who used the online PD tools and were pleased from internet stores. I've also had to ask for PD measurements, but they always did them. PD for me has been constant, unlike vision prescriptions where they vary, so I always get 2 or more checkups, one paid for by insurance, one by me cash. Sometimes with the two checkups, I'll get 3 different prescriptions, especially if using a machine reader at lenscrafters or a chain store. The last time I asked to use the machine tester twice, and my reading was .25 different in one eye within 20 minutes.

However, all of my checkups are with full dilation and with the extensive round of "is that better or worse?" subjective measurements.

Eyeglass stores are so damned secretive about Pupil Distance, insist that your eye doctor do it for you next time. They don't do it because they think they are stepping on the toes of the optician. It is a simple measurement that never changes, unless you are run over by a truck. Some folks with odd spacing may need a left and right distance.

Some opticians measure me at 63 but some want to go with 32L-31R. I have always just stuck with 63. If you get close glasses normally that is 3~4 less in my case 60 is fine. The fact that these guys are now selling a pair of lenses for more than a Nikon 50 1.4 is ridiculous.

[newspaperguy]

I've worn glasses for more than 50 years. I can get away with framing a scene w/o the specs on, but need them to focus.

I use a "sailor's" keeper... an elastic band that slips over the earpieces and goes loosely around the back of your neck to keep your (sun) glasses from falling into the "water."

You can just slip the spec off your ears and let them hang safely in front of you.

No problem getting close to my Canon P without scratching the glasses, but on my Canon 7, as well as the Kievs, I've cemented rubber 'O' rings around the viewfinder to stop the scratching.

[nikonhswebmaster]

PD for me has been constant

I hope so, the thought of my skull changing size is somewhat disturbing, but I am sure there is a disease where it occurs?

[visiondr]

I personally believe that myopia is 90% environmental, and maybe 10% genetic. It is a multifactor disease.

Consider that 70-90% of Asian children have myopia, and only 10-20% of German and Australian children and you have to look at the prescribing behaviors and studying behaviors.

Genetics were ruled out in one study among Chinese children who were raised in different environments but had similar known loci thought to be related to myopia.

Also, several studies of mainland China versus Taiwan studies indicate that juvenile myopia has strong environmental influences.

I think your 70% genetic bias is very high.

You might want to read those studies more carefully, my friend. You are half right. The conclusions reached by investigators in all the Asian students studies I'm familiar with is that myopia is largely an inherited propensity to become nearsighted secondary to long and intense near work. So, yes, environment is a critical factor and yes they are connected. But, the shift toward nearsightedness in some individuals is most likely determined genetically. Why else would there be a discrepancy between the rates and extent of myopia between Asian and European students? The total time spent studying, playing on the internet or just being indoors is virtually the same between those two populations. Book learnin' isn't the only near task we do. Every single task performed inside a distance of 20 feet involves accommodation (focusing) of the eye and, as such, is a "strain".

Also, human studies on multifactoral conditions like myopia are incredibly difficult. It is nearly impossible to parse out all the different factors and come to meaningful conclusions. The people involved in this research are intensely aware of this and admit that they simply don't know enough about why myopia happens.f

Step back and consider the possibility that Asians are more likely to become nearsighted with the same amount of near work because of genetic factors. Ashkenazy Jews, for example, are several times more likely to become nearsighted and with much higher degrees of myopia than nearly any other population. And yet, there's no evidence that this population is any more studious than say, Protestant Dutch kids.

Putting a nearsighted kid on a farm or taking away his/her glasses won't change the fact that he/she is nearsighted. And even if environment is 90%, do you really want your children to study less?

[ampguy]

The kids do study too much sometimes and need to get outside and play some sports. They're also gifted, at the top of their class, have been invited to the white house, and receive signed letters from George W. Bush.

How many of these letters do you have hung up in your office ? :D

You can treat the symptoms of multifactor diseases like myopia or borderline high-blood pressure with prescriptions and make a lot of fast easy money, and your patient is likely on the medications for life.

Or, you can recommend they get a treadmill and get into shape and make less money. Which is better for the patient?

Should we accept that it is OK for American kids to be obese and encourage them to continue their regular overeating at McDonalds and consumption of trans fats because a few kids may have a genetic propensity for obesity??


You might want to read those studies more carefully, my friend. You are half right. The conclusions reached by investigators in all the Asian students studies I'm familiar with is that myopia is largely an inherited propensity to become nearsighted secondary to long and intense near work. So, yes, environment is a critical factor and yes they are connected. But, the shift toward nearsightedness in some individuals is most likely determined genetically. Why else would there be a discrepancy between the rates and extent of myopia between Asian and European students? The total time spent studying, playing on the internet or just being indoors is virtually the same between those two populations. Book learnin' isn't the only near task we do. Every single task performed inside a distance of 20 feet involves accommodation (focusing) of the eye and, as such, is a "strain".

Also, human studies on multifactoral conditions like myopia are incredibly difficult. It is nearly impossible to parse out all the different factors and come to meaningful conclusions. The people involved in this research are intensely aware of this and admit that they simply don't know enough about why myopia happens.f

Step back and consider the possibility that Asians are more likely to become nearsighted with the same amount of near work because of genetic factors. Ashkenazy Jews, for example, are several times more likely to become nearsighted and with much higher degrees of myopia than nearly any other population. And yet, there's no evidence that this population is any more studious than say, Protestant Dutch kids.

Putting a nearsighted kid on a farm or taking away his/her glasses won't change the fact that he/she is nearsighted. And even if environment is 90%, do you really want your children to study less?

[visiondr]

You can treat the symptoms of multifactor diseases like myopia or borderline high-blood pressure with prescriptions and make a lot of fast easy money, and your patient is likely on the medications for life.

Or, you can recommend they get a treadmill and get into shape and make less money. Which is better for the patient?

Should we accept that it is OK for American kids to be obese and encourage them to continue their regular overeating at McDonalds and consumption of trans fats because a few kids may have a genetic propensity for obesity??

I really don't know where to start. Obesity and myopia are only similar insofar as genetics play a very important role in both.

Secondly, you don't just treat myopia. Are you suggesting that glasses and contact lenses MAKE people myopic? If so, you'd be WRONG! Let's dispel this myth once and for all. Appropriately prescribed ophthalmic lenses do NOT make people myopic. Period, end of story. If you could prove that (and, again, there is no proof to be had) tens of thousands of malpractice lawyers would be standing on your doorstep looking for clients. One more time (with feeling) It just doesn't work that way.

I'd love to find some way to help my myopic patients become less nearsighted. But, as of July 2008, there is no scientifically proven way to do that. There are lots of charlatans out there who'd like to sell you some method of "reducing your dependence on contacts and glasses". However, they'll just take your money and you might have 0.50 Diopters less myopia. That isn't a significant amount, nor is it consistent or long lasting.

[ampguy]

Nope. I am not saying that glasses cause myopia. I'm not sure where you pulled that from. I think we both already agreed that improper prescriptions probably don't help, right?

Here's the summary of an interesting study on the subject. What do you think?

Morgan I (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Morgan%20I%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Rose K (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Rose%20K%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus).
Visual Sciences Group, Research School of Biological Sciences and Centre for Visual Science, Australian National University, GPO Box 475, Canberra City, ACT 2601, Australia. ian.morgan@anu.edu.au
Myopia is of diverse aetiology. A small proportion of myopia is clearly familial, generally early in onset and of high level, with defined chromosomal localisations and in some cases, causal genetic mutations. However, in economically developed societies, most myopia appears during childhood, particularly during the school years. The chromosomal localisations characterised so far for high familial myopia do not seem to be relevant to school myopia. Family correlations in refractive error and axial length are consistent with a genetic contribution to variations in school myopia, but potentially confound shared genes and shared environments. High heritability values are obtained from twin studies, but rest on contestable assumptions, and require further critical analysis, particularly in view of the low heritability values obtained from parent-offspring correlations where there has been rapid environmental change between generations. Since heritability is a population-specific parameter, the values obtained on twins cannot be extrapolated to define the genetic contribution to variation in the general population. In addition, high heritability sets no limit to the potential for environmentally induced change. There is in fact strong evidence for rapid, environmentally induced change in the prevalence of myopia, associated with increased education and urbanisation. These environmental impacts have been found in all major branches of the human family, defined in modern molecular terms, with the exception of the Pacific Islanders, where the evidence is too limited to draw conclusions. The idea that populations of East Asian origin have an intrinsically higher prevalence of myopia is not supported by the very low prevalence reported for them in rural areas, and by the high prevalence of myopia reported for Indians in Singapore. A propensity to develop myopia in "myopigenic" environments thus appears to be a common human characteristic. Overall, while there may be a small genetic contribution to school myopia, detectable under conditions of low environmental variation, environmental change appears to be the major factor increasing the prevalence of myopia around the world. There is, moreover, little evidence to support the idea that individuals or populations differ in their susceptibility to environmental risk factors.
PMID: 15555525 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

I really don't know where to start. Obesity and myopia are only similar insofar as genetics play a very important role in both.

Secondly, you don't just treat myopia. Are you suggesting that glasses and contact lenses MAKE people myopic? If so, you'd be WRONG! Let's dispel this myth once and for all. Appropriately prescribed ophthalmic lenses do NOT make people myopic. Period, end of story. If you could prove that (and, again, there is no proof to be had) tens of thousands of malpractice lawyers would be standing on your doorstep looking for clients. One more time (with feeling) It just doesn't work that way.

I'd love to find some way to help my myopic patients become less nearsighted. But, as of July 2008, there is no scientifically proven way to do that. There are lots of charlatans out there who'd like to sell you some method of "reducing your dependence on contacts and glasses". However, they'll just take your money and you might have 0.50 Diopters less myopia. That isn't a significant amount, nor is it consistent or long lasting.

[visiondr]

Excellent! Thank you for the summary.
Again, near work and a close in environment are likely the major triggers to myopia but the bullet it genetic. If environment were the 90% factor you suggest, why then wouldn't 90% of kids in school for 8 hrs/day become myopic and to exactly the same degree? A varied genetic propensity to become nearsighted explains all the findings described above. The authors suggest the heritability of myopia triggered by near work or a close-in environment is the basis for increased myopia in many societies. I wholeheartedly agree. In other words, it is often not the myopia itself which is inherited, but the reaction to specific environmental conditions — and this reaction can be the onset and the progression of myopia.

[ampguy]

I believe that individual variability, regardless of the culture, or country has a lot to do with the level of myopia, especially school onset myopia.

Do you ever go on field trips or attend your kids class? See variations in behaviors, skill sets, heights, weights, skin colors, and all kinds of variances of traits we know to be of mixed genetic and environmental factors, whether you believe the latter to be 30% or 90% for myopia?

I agree with your last sentence. The interesting thing to me, and maybe to you is the variances between Asian countries like mainland China, Singapore, Japan, and Malaysia. We know that some of these countries have a lot of other things going on besides vision than English speaking countries (or countries using a primary Romanized language for writing in elementary school). There is learning of languages that use different part of the brain (kanji is graphical, right side, roman is more left, analytical) - Japan uses Kanji, but also two phonetical languages, Hiragana and Katakana, China has different levels depending on age and region.

Most languages taken in elementary schools in north America use roman languages. Some of the studies involving Asian students have taken rise in heartbeat as a measurement in addition to myopia changes.

I think we agree on a lot, but time will tell what factors early and overly frequent corrective solutions to myopia have on children around the world. I'm sorry this is a sore spot with you, but it's something I strongly believe.

Also, regarding the kid on the farm, I do not think he has myopia and doesn't know it as you alluded. I agree he would likely be in the range as he entered schools with constant close reading/viewing, but before he has done this, he does not have myopia, and that is also the view of some of the studies that measured rural Asian childrens vision.


Excellent! Thank you for the summary.
Again, near work and a close in environment are likely the major triggers to myopia but the bullet it genetic. If environment were the 90% factor you suggest, why then wouldn't 90% of kids in school for 8 hrs/day become myopic and to exactly the same degree? A varied genetic propensity to become nearsighted explains all the findings described above. The authors suggest the heritability of myopia triggered by near work or a close-in environment is the basis for increased myopia in many societies. I wholeheartedly agree. In other words, it is often not the myopia itself which is inherited, but the reaction to specific environmental conditions — and this reaction can be the onset and the progression of myopia.

[Hacker]

I had successful Lasik surgery last October. My vision went from needing a -6 correction to 20/20 uncorrected. Actually, under the right conditions I'm 20/15 uncorrected. It has really made a significant difference in every area especially photography. For anyone who may have been thinking about it but were hesitant, the new blade less, wavefront correction is really amazing.

I've booked mine for next Wednesday. I chose microkeratome over "bladeless" as the latest technologies for both appear to have very simliar results. I have been wearing glasses for the last 30 years, so it will soon be the first time I will be using a camera without glasses.

[mike goldberg]

I'm lucky, in that my glasses are for reading only. Thus, they don't interfere with small rear RF windows, such as that on the Fed. However, to see and change the Fed's shutter speeds which are tiny and etched into the small shutter speed dial... I do have to use my glasses. It is for this reason, that I prefer the Bessa R and the very user friendly Oly 35 RC: I can adjust speeds and apertures without the glasses.

[Jamie Pillers]

I was just about to put my 40mm Nokton up for sale because of how hard it is to see the framelines in my Bessa R3A with my glasses on (I'm VERY near-sighted... -5 diopter). At about that moment I was talking to the local Voigtlander dealer and mentioned my frustration with the 40mm framelines. He suggested I try a diopter lens that Nikon (Cosina actually) makes for their FM bodies. I found one at the local camera shop and it works GREAT! Alright... I'm walking around with my glasses hanging out of my mouth a lot now, but I LOVE seeing the 40 framelines and I REALLY love being able to keep the 40 Nokton! :-)

[newspaperguy]

I've worn glasses for 50+ years. I can compose with the glasses off, but need them to focus accurately. I use a boaters harness to allow my specs to hang around my neck when they are off my nose. There are many versions - roughly it's a 12" length of fabric or ribbon that goes behind your neck, with loops or tubes on the end to grasp your glasses earpieces - designed to keep your sunglasses from falling into the aqua..
I've had no scratching problems with my Canon P. but have added rubber "O" rings to the eyepieces of my 7, my Kievs and several SLRs.

[ampguy]

I've had great success using my Nikon diopter from my F3 on the Epson RD1. Good to know that the R3A uses standard Nikon diopters.

I was just about to put my 40mm Nokton up for sale because of how hard it is to see the framelines in my Bessa R3A with my glasses on (I'm VERY near-sighted... -5 diopter). At about that moment I was talking to the local Voigtlander dealer and mentioned my frustration with the 40mm framelines. He suggested I try a diopter lens that Nikon (Cosina actually) makes for their FM bodies. I found one at the local camera shop and it works GREAT! Alright... I'm walking around with my glasses hanging out of my mouth a lot now, but I LOVE seeing the 40 framelines and I REALLY love being able to keep the 40 Nokton! :-)

[newspaperguy]

Whoops - meant to say, I can't see the NUMBERS when focusing (or setting aperature) without my glasses.

[ampguy]

before all states will be required to either provide PD as part of an exam, or disclose that they aren't taking a couple of minutes of time so they can send you to THEIR retail glasses section.

Here (http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30150)is a thread of opticians discussing the impact on their businesses by providing PDs as part of their exams:


Eyeglass stores are so damned secretive about Pupil Distance, insist that your eye doctor do it for you next time. They don't do it because they think they are stepping on the toes of the optician. It is a simple measurement that never changes, unless you are run over by a truck. Some folks with odd spacing may need a left and right distance.

Some opticians measure me at 63 but some want to go with 32L-31R. I have always just stuck with 63. If you get close glasses normally that is 3~4 less in my case 60 is fine. The fact that these guys are now selling a pair of lenses for more than a Nikon 50 1.4 is ridiculous.

[Jamie Pillers]

The Nikon FM-10 body is made by Cosina and I believe some of that design is used in the new Bessa bodies, including the eyepiece.

[ampguy]

So for the R3A, does one have to use CV diopters, or will Nikon made and branded diopters work?

The Nikon FM-10 body is made by Cosina and I believe some of that design is used in the new Bessa bodies, including the eyepiece.

[David Goldfarb]

I've worn glasses since I was about 11 or 12 years old and always photograph with them on. I've found it's helped to get smaller and smaller frames each time, so the lens sits high on my nose and I can get close enough to see just about all of the finder image.

Lately, as my vision has been changing, I sometimes take my glasses off to look at the groundglass when I'm shooting large format. Close enough, I can focus pretty well without a loupe, but I still do better with a loupe and my glasses.

The only time I take my glasses off to focus is in the darkroom with a grain focuser, because it has enough room for adjustment to accommodate my natural eyesight.

[pagpow]

So – it looks like different solutions for different people, influenced by many things – correction needed, style of shooting, viewfinder lines, love of eyeglasses, etc. I’m still working through this, but here’s what I’ve found so far. YMMV.

To calibrate, I’m –3.5 in my shooting eye (right eye), mild astigmatism, wear progressives in hard (thin) plastic with titanium frames. Tried contacts a long time ago; no go. So I needed something that dealt with scratches, clear vision, and view of the viewfinder.

Currently shooting mostly with Leica M2, M3, RD-1, Xpan, Canon F1, Olympus OM as well as some others.

Spent time looking at the various add-ons to the Leica eyepiece ring – many of them created greater distance from the eyepiece, or involved the DIY (liquid rubber) or barrel distortion (0.85x). What worked best was DAG plastic cover that fits over the outside diameter of the eyepiece ring – very thin, protected eyeglass lens.

Eventually, however, I found that getting a –3 diopter (or relevant equivalent for the individual camera) worked best. I’ve tried both the Leica and the HK Supplies –3 on my Leicas. Perhaps there’s a difference but not large enough to hit me between the eyes (can’t tell whether that pun was intended). Head Bartender’s –3 on the RD-1 (one of the Nikon’s fits and uses your prescription number, rather than requiring additions/subtractions, but is not rubberized so no help in preserving glasses). Equivalent is a –4 on the Xpan. Zorki 4K has a diopter correction. Various brands of SLRs have their own native correction in the viewfinder and label the diopter on the basis of the total, not just what you add.

The procedure I use is this. When I want to shoot, I put the camera to my eye with the left hand while pushing my glasses to my forehead with my right (very little delay), then right hand goes to camera to operate. Haven’t lost/dropped the glasses yet; but that may be easier to do with plastic frames.

Added advantage of this process, higher contrast, fewer reflections in the viewfinder, easier to focus.

As for variations, I have read, but not verified, that greater astigmatism than mine may disallow using the commercially available diopters.

Finally, there are eyeglass frames made so either eyepiece can be moved out of the way to shoot. Your dispensing optician will find them under “make-up glasses”.

[pagpow]

So for the R3A, does one have to use CV diopters, or will Nikon made and branded diopters work?

Don't remember the Nikon body, but as indicated in the longer post above, ordered both Nikon and Cosina diopters for the RD1. Both work optically; the Nikon ones I ordered were metal, w/o rubber protection. The rubber was worth the extra $9 (Nikon $16, Cosina $25 to me). Besides, the camera looked better that way and, as we all know, that improves the quality of our pictures.:D

[Jim Evidon]

Like Tom, I have worn glasses since I was 5 with astigmatism and myopia. As I aged into my retirement my eyes finally improved to -4 and the astigmatism is gone. As it is now, I too have to put my glasses right up to the finder, suffering the grease marks and all in order to see the entire frame lines, and only if I move my head around. In shopping for a diopter correction lens for the Leica which is not adjustable like my SLR's I found to my dismay that the strongest made for Leica is a -3. I almost gave up until a few days ago. I found that the M8 has a -0.5 bias. So I happily ordered a magnifier and a -3 diopter correction lens that will fit it from a vendor in Hong Kong; both for about $70. They claim that the glass is Japanese, so maybe I'll luck out. A -3.5 (including the -.5 of the M8 finder) should be close enough to work. Incidentally, I also sight with my left eye, but I assumed that it was related to the fact that I am also left handed. What about the rest of you poor myopics? Are you also left handed? It's probably best not to answer because that will start a whole new thread.
Cheers,
Jim Evidon

[amateriat]

After a while you do get a feel for the part of the finder you can't see, and you can to move your eye around a bit to take more in. Not perfect, but good enough for me. I've finally stopped worrying about the inevitable scratches on my lenses, and I don't even notice them most of the time. I'm due to get a new prescription later this month and have been thinking about relegating the old pair to special camera duty, but I doubt that I'd stick to that arrangement for very long.
This is pretty much how it's been from the beginning for me (bespectacled since age seven; see avatar). I struggled a bit, way back, with SLRs until I got hold of a pair of Nikon F3 HPs, then struggled some more until getting a pair of Minolta 9xi bodies, then onto my current Hexars. I was expecting real problems with the Hex's 28mm framelines, but it's not nearly the issue I imagined...not perfect, but quite manageable. I've been lucky that most all the cameras I really grokked with had rubberized/plasticized eyepiece surrounds, minimizing eyeglass lens scratching (can't really afford twice-annual lens replacements like Tom). Being nearsighted, I'm lucky that my vision has steadily strengthened in the last decade (one of the handful of advantages of hitting what we call Middle Age, at least if you're nearsighted), and, if absolutely necessary, I can focus my Hexars sans spectacles, though it's not quite a fun experience.

And, now that Tom mentions it, most of my photographer friends and associates do have some sort of vision "defect." Yep, that must partly explain my near-lifelong fascination with all this stuff. ;)


- Barrett

[biomed]

I do OK wearing my glasses with my Bessas and SLRs. The only camera that gives me problems is the Yashica Electro 35 Gxx. I have to remove my glasses to clearly see the RF patch on both of my GSNs.

[ampguy]

btw, m film bodies and many SLRs also have a negative bias (~ -0.5) built-in.

I use my right eye, and am slightly myopic ( < -2.0 in both eyes). I think there's something to Tom A.'s mention of correlation between left eyed photographers.

Some interesting links on L/R brain activity and switching are here (http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22492511-5005375,00.html)and here (http://amnesiablog.wordpress.com/2006/09/27/brain-switching-test-creative-right-and-left-brain-results/).

Like Tom, I have worn glasses since I was 5 with astigmatism and myopia. As I aged into my retirement my eyes finally improved to -4 and the astigmatism is gone. As it is now, I too have to put my glasses right up to the finder, suffering the grease marks and all in order to see the entire frame lines, and only if I move my head around. In shopping for a diopter correction lens for the Leica which is not adjustable like my SLR's I found to my dismay that the strongest made for Leica is a -3. I almost gave up until a few days ago. I found that the M8 has a -0.5 bias. So I happily ordered a magnifier and a -3 diopter correction lens that will fit it from a vendor in Hong Kong; both for about $70. They claim that the glass is Japanese, so maybe I'll luck out. A -3.5 (including the -.5 of the M8 finder) should be close enough to work. Incidentally, I also sight with my left eye, but I assumed that it was related to the fact that I am also left handed. What about the rest of you poor myopics? Are you also left handed? It's probably best not to answer because that will start a whole new thread.
Cheers,
Jim Evidon

[Jim Evidon]

Ampguy,
I'd like to read those links, but when I followed your suggestion:Some interesting links on L/R brain activity and switching are here and here, all I got was a message that said:Adresss Not Found. Could you give the links?
Jim Evidon

[ampguy]

first one is here:

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22492511-5005375,00.html

second is here:

http://amnesiablog.wordpress.com/2006/09/27/brain-switching-test-creative-right-and-left-brain-results/



Ampguy,
I'd like to read those links, but when I followed your suggestion:, all I got was a message that said:. Could you give the links?
Jim Evidon

[newspaperguy]

Semi-OT, but if you're using a Bessa R and want a soft landing for your glasses, the Nikon DK-9 rubber pad fits nicely on the R viewfinder.

[gfspencer]

I found this picture a friend took of me while shooting with my sadly departed R2A and Ultron 35/1.7 <sigh>

This is my usual shooting stance I think.. scrunched up face, glasses in my mouth. Yummy!

http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/8/27/188909/camera1.jpg
Usually I leave my glasses on. (Works well with the 40D with its adjustable eye piece.)
I might have to remove my glasses with the M6TTL or the M8 depending on what lens I'm using. When I do that I put my glasses in my mouth.

[Ben Z]

I've been around a -4 since I was in elementary school. I never bothered with diopters on my cameras because taking my glasses off to shoot left me unable to see anything outside the camera until I put the glasses back on.

Finally the usual happened and I started to also need correction for close sight, so I got progressive lenses. The first pair I got were from Lens Crafters and I couldn't get used to them after months. Then a family friend who's an optometrist in another country told me to try Verilux Comfort lenses. Of course Lens Crafters assured me their lenses were just as good, but I went ahead and got Verilux anyway, and long story short, I was used to them by the time I left the store, and drove straight to Lens Crafters and got my money back.

But I digress. Now, I find that I need to use the middle of the progressive lenses to see clearly through a camera (that doesn't have an adjustable eyepiece). My close prescription is a +2 Add (effectively bringing me to a -2), but I find that with a +1 (on a Leica), +0.5 (Nikon F) or +2 (Rolleiflex) I can use the top part of my glasses, which is more comfortable for me.

The Leica diopters are, fortunately, rubber-coated. Before them, I replaced the eyepieces on my M4's with M6 eyepieces, which are the same optically but have rubber. They'll fit an M2 also. When I had an M3 (which requires different optics than the M2,3,4,5,6,7 etc.) I got one of the rubber-coated corrective diopters and knocked the glass out of it. That worked better for me than any of the other means of rubber or plastic coating the M3 eyepiece.

[Hacker]

I chickened out at the last minute and chose Intralase over microkertome. Recovering right now from yesterday's 10 minute procedure.

[Beemermark]

Can't even find my camera without my glasses -- been like that forever -- .

I had the same problem. Worse I couldn't find my glasses without my glasses. Both my eyes were the same 20/200. Once presbyopia starts things only get worse. If you wear contacts you can no longer see any of the camera settings. Very recently I had my right, dominant eye corrected to 20/20 with Lasik. My other eye didn't need correction to see things up close. With both eyes open I have 20/40 vision, not great but good enough to get around without glasses. Right eye is corrected for far vision, Left eye for near vision. I still wear progressive lenses for driving and the theater but 80% of the time I don't wear them at all. Vision is perfect for cameras.

[Richie]

I wear graduated bifocals. So I can't see the 35mm framelines in my M6 TTL 0.72 body. I use an external Cosina/Voigtlander 35mm viewfinder. And a 1.25x magnifier. This way I can focus very accurately and also see completely what will be on film. Its not an elegant solution, but it works for me (see the photos below).

[dmr]

I've worn glasses since my teens for distance only. The strength of the prescription has been creeping up over the years, and now at -3.something, spherical only. So far (knocking on wood) I haven't needed bifocals or glasses for near work.

The thing is, with viewfinders, I seem to be able to use them almost equally well with glasses or without them. I can RF focus and I have never scratched the lenses. I often shoot outdoors with prescription sunglasses.

The one issue is with the TLR. I have to hold this waaaayyyyy down to be able to focus with glasses, or up above the waist to focus without them. The comfortable waist focusing distance is right in the bad focus area for me. (The thought of trifocals depresses me!)

[Tuolumne]

I have -8 vision in both eyes, so I am very near sighted. It is impossible to focus my cameras without my glasses on. Not only that, but I have tri-focals as well. I push the camera up to my glasses and press as close to my eye as I can get, using the distance part of the tri-focal. This happens quite naturally and I don't have to think about it. I make damn sure all of my camera eye pieces are rubberized or I would be replacing the lenses monthly. There are various plasticized or rubberized accessories you can get for those stupid metal eye pieces on early Leica cameras to protect your glasses. I use them all. On later Leicas you can replace the metal eyepiece ring with a rubberized one from Leica for $99 dollars.

Since I am so near-sighted and use tri-focals, I usually peep over the top of my glasses to view any camera settings such as aperture, speed, ISO setting, etc. It all works fine, except that it's hard to see the wide angle frame lines with my glasses keeping the eye piece from getting close enough to my eye. I wish Leica had made high eye-point finders. Of course many Japanese camera manufacturers did, but Leica? Nah! :(

/T