Eyeglasses

Discussion in 'Photography' started by Paul Furman, Apr 8, 2009.

  1. Paul Furman

    Paul Furman Guest

    The latest guy's form has a slot for base, lenscrafters does not.

    ....that's my only reply, thanks for all the interesting comments!


    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Apr 19, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  2. Paul Furman

    Paul Furman Guest

    My mother (in her 70's) said she read a book recently about how it's a
    good idea not to wear your glasses all the time. A whole book on that
    topic! I don't recall much, probably because it exercises your focus
    muscles? I've read that it's good to look away from the computer to give
    your eyes a break and specifically to focus on something further away...


    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Apr 19, 2009
    1. Advertisements

  3. Paul Furman

    Paul Furman Guest

    Thanks!

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Apr 19, 2009
  4. I'm reminded of meeting someone who'd had it done and couldn't stop
    talking about how wonderful it was, how much superior to spectacles,
    and spent most of dinner trying to talk me and the other spec wearers
    into agreeing to have it done. After dinner we went to see a huge
    public fireworks display. This was the first time he'd watched
    fireworks after having had the operation, and the starburst effects
    terrified him. He became convinced there was something wrong with his
    eyes, that watching fireworks might be damaging them, and fled the
    festivities in great distress.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 19, 2009
  5. Paul Furman

    Bruce Guest


    A lens with a higher than normal refractive index, meaning that lenses
    can be significantly thinner and lighter, especially in the higher
    prescriptions. The thin and light aspect comes at the expense of some
    increase in distortion.


    Silhouette is an Austrian brand of extremely high quality spectacle
    frames. The vast majority of frames are made in Korea and carry all the
    top designer brand names you could think of, but Silhouette is one of
    the very few to retain its traditional manufacturing base. They
    specialise in designing and manufacturing ultra-lightweight and rimless
    frames in advanced materials.


    No idea, sorry.


    My NAS too. That's why I chose an optical store that sold Nikon lenses.
    Previously I used Carl Zeiss for some years. When Carl Zeiss sold their
    spectacle lens division, I moved to Rodenstock, who used the same Schott
    glass. But now, with advanced optical resins available, I faced a
    choice between a number of brands I had never heard of, plus Kodak and
    Nikon.

    I know Kodak sensors don't perform well at high ISOs, so I chose Nikon*.
    ;-)


    [that's a joke, by the way]
     
    Bruce, Apr 19, 2009
  6. Paul Furman

    Bruce Guest


    I am sure you will be absolutely delighted with it. I use the 14-24mm,
    24-70mm and 70-200mm Zoom Nikkors (all f/2.8) and they are outstandingly
    sharp. I also have a Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 and it just doesn't compare.
     
    Bruce, Apr 19, 2009
  7. I now view a 24" monitor, and I now tend to lean toward it from
    my unusual viewpoint (there is a MIDI keyboard between it and the
    computer keyboard, plus there is a "track" for the cat in front of the
    computer keyboard - otherwise the glasses would be fine...;-).
    See here - www.donferrario.com/ruether/4-distance-glasses.htm,
    but briefly, since with bifocal glasses one has potentially 4 distance
    settings to work with, why not make use of that with slight monovision?
    For camera use, I set the non-predominant eye distant lens at infinity,
    the other eye main lens at one meter (the VF distance for the camera),
    the non-predominant eye bifocal at 2+', and the predominant eye
    bifocal at 1.5+'. Since the "errors" are small, the results are a smooth
    coverage of all distances (with the bifocal physical properties of the
    glasses modified as described earlier, above). This works, and it does
    so VERY well! ;-) There is no soft "overlay" of the image from the
    slightly "miss-set" eye corrections, but it can take a couple of weeks
    to get night driving right all the time (but when vision occasionally
    gets a bit fuzzy then, closing the predominant eye for a moment
    corrects it - and very soon, there are no problems at all...
    I think most people don't care about the quality of their peripheral
    vision, but being a wide-angle nut, I like to see as well as possible
    a wide view...;-) And, I've learned how to see away from the axial
    point of attention, which is all that most people use for seeing things
    other than motion...
    I don't know. When I fog my lenses now, I don't see the spots, but
    with careful examination in the past, I could. I just tried it with my
    computer glasses, with no luck...
    Mine are asymmetrical ovals, more than 2" max. height, but these just
    barely accommodate the minimum-sized flat-top insets set low, with,
    barely a bit of distance lens under most parts of them for good ground
    vision. Better good function for me than "style" any day...! ;-)
    I agree.
    I think that's where they put the distance prescription in the bifocal in
    one eye, with the, usual "Try them for a while, you'll get used to them"
    advice when they are clearly wrong...;-(
    Yes. The nearsighted prescription for my left eye is moderately strong,
    making the lens thick at the frame edge (maybe 3/16"...?), but they are still
    light with the plastic lenses (which have been very durable), and I see no
    chromatic problems with them...
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 19, 2009
  8. Paul Furman

    Paul Furman Guest

    Ah, OK, thanks for clarifying that detail.
    :)

    With my current minor corrections, I don't care about weight, I still
    think I'd rather have glass lenses though maybe that's dumb...

    I suspect one reason the distance end of my progressives is not a
    convincing improvement is the simple fact of having so-so lenses in
    front of my eyes, even if they were flat and clear. The distance part
    has pretty trivial corrections so the real factor is scratches, smudges
    & dust. But bifocals make sense so I don't have to keep taking the
    glasses on & off. From a logical standpoint, it would make sense to have
    narrow rimless reading glasses that rode low so I see distance above
    them but that would look weird. I'm also not crazy about the idea of
    split line bifocals for vanity reasons but I will order a pair online to
    see.

    Googling around some, high-index specs seem to be the cost issue with
    these high end lenses. That's not a problem for me (the weight). I don't
    know if there are other advantages.

    Because my prescription is mild, chromatic aberrations should not be a
    problem either, however, when I brought into the latest exam, my Canon
    +2 diopter closeup lens with two elements to make all those
    corrections... it was amazingly sharp. Way better than anything I saw in
    the whole series of tests. The fact that it's a greater magnification
    may be biasing that perception though. And maybe just the fact they were
    not progressives with blur everywhere but the center.

    Here's another detailed thread covering Nikon eyeglasses and other topics:
    http://groups.google.com/group/glas...&ie=UTF-8&q=nikon+eyeglasses#5c8b874e0892e81a

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Apr 20, 2009
  9. Generally speaking, yes, but the amount of chromatic aberration also
    varies with the material, so that you can for instance get high index
    glass lenses with lower distortion than plastic lenses of lower
    refractive index. One of the reasons I stick with glass for my
    spectacle lenses.
     
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 20, 2009
  10. Paul Furman

    Private Guest

    Thanks for the info & link.

     
    Private, Apr 20, 2009
  11. Paul Furman

    Bob Larter Guest

    I feel the same way after paying my rent, but that doesn't make it a
    conspiracy.


    PS: And a big "Hello" to Lynne Lyons, AKA "Goofy",
    who's watching this from Google Alerts!
     
    Bob Larter, Apr 20, 2009
  12. Paul Furman

    ASAAR Guest

    The refur . . . err, "pre-owned" ones that come in Nikon's gray
    boxes are just as nice but not near so dear!

    Do you also have a P6000? I noticed that Nikon doesn't supply a
    charger with it, so its batteries need to be charged in camera. B&H
    however, sells the older, much smaller Coolpix P4 (refurbished) for
    just over $100 (it also has VR), and it includes the MH-61 charger
    that Nikon should have provided with the P6000. Not surprising that
    it's the same since they both use EN-EL5 batteries. The P4 would be
    convenient for the times when the P6000 is just too big and heavy to
    lug around. :)
     
    ASAAR, Apr 22, 2009
  13. [...with a few changes/additions/clarifications added below...]
    I experienced this before getting my first glasses, and the miss-match
    was too great for ideal vision and good stereo perception. My system
    keeps the monovision slight...
    A-HAH! ;-) That is where I heard about focus shift toward infinity with age
    (from my eye doctor), and that is why I would think about 17 times before
    considering LASIK surgery. I would hate later in life to be unable to see
    at any distance without corrective devices...
    B-A-A-A-D service ! ! ! But, unfortunately, this was not unusual in my
    experience with the chains...
    I will not go anywhere now but to my (EXCELLENT!!!) regular place
    here (and the prices happen to be still "right"...;-).
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 22, 2009
  14. Ah, after looking at my prescriptions from '02, '05, and .'08, there
    were some variations, but not a lot to get excited about, except for
    one sudden shift of .5 diopter in one inset...
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 22, 2009
  15. Paul Furman

    Bruce Guest


    I don't think that's dumb at all. I stayed with glass lenses for all my
    eyeglasses until last year, when I ordered a pair of sunglasses with
    ultra-high index Pentax resin lenses. I have been very pleased with
    them, especially their scratch resistance, which seems as good as glass,
    so I have also changed to plastic for my main pair in 2009. These have
    the Nikon lenses - NAS caused me to go to a store that stocked them!

    There's something about looking through Nikon SLR lenses via Nikon
    eyeglass lenses. ;-)


    Another big advantage if you have a negative (minus) prescription or
    significant astigmatism is the thinner edges to the lens. I have quite
    severe astigmatism and conventional, low index lenses can look quite
    thick at the edges. The ultra-high index lenses are more discreet.
     
    Bruce, Apr 24, 2009
  16. Paul Furman

    me Guest


    Paul, fwiw you might consider the safety perspective. I believe all the
    high index plastics also meet the specs for safety glass. Normal glass
    lenses do not.
     
    me, Apr 24, 2009
  17. Paul Furman

    ASAAR Guest

    I don't compile them as I hear or read about them, but one that
    comes instantly to mind is local radio talk show right wing wacko
    Steve Malzberg. Before the turn of the century, when some people
    were worried about the "millennium bug" he was predicting disaster
    for months, talking about the wisdom of stocking up huge amounts of
    supplies in underground bunkers, as well as weapons to defend the
    supplies from the marauding rabble that would appear as civilization
    collapsed. I wouldn't be surprised if you think that Glen Beck's
    tearful on-air meltdown was justified.

    Not so much a conservative as an ignorant elitist.

    I think not. He probably was a fully functional average guy when
    he was "young and foolish", but excessive booze and drugs had its
    way with his neuron supply. People that know him say that he didn't
    used to be such an inarticulate and bumbling kinda guy. How many
    people do you know that are kayoed by a pretzel? Or was that just a
    cover story?

    Foghorn Leghorn says that that was a joke, I say a joke, son. His
    family once had (may still have) extensive holdings in those
    regions.
    Back in the early 50's "poppy" Bush formed Zapata Petroleum, and
    about 16 years later, Zapata bought the United Fruit Company.

    Impossible. As Bill knows and has told us too often, it's the
    liberals that are responsible for his overpayment of thousand of
    dollars. They wouldn't let the money get into the hands of anyone
    outside of their cabal.

    Foghorn says . . . well, you know. :)

    Actually I didn't even mention how FDR, Prescott Bush and
    (TaDaaaa!) Nazi ties may have influenced Dubya. I just did a quick
    google search and the first hit returned was the following, from of
    all things, a Republican website.
    . . .
    http://republican.meetup.com/boards/thread/3317707


    Now, was that a good substitute for the eyeglass bit or what? :)
     
    ASAAR, Apr 25, 2009
  18. Paul Furman

    ASAAR Guest

    Elitist considering not just the family wealth, but the views he
    espoused long before the suggestion of politics was implanted within
    his skull and bones. Ignorant because there's a difference between
    ignorance and stupidity. He believes what he believes and lives a
    remarkably fact free life. If you don't see this after his eight
    years in the spotlight, any attempt to convince you would be futile.


    I think not, redux. It was a brilliant move, but not his. He can
    thank Rove for this.

    That was extensively covered in the news over seven years ago.
    Which hemisphere do you live in? :)
    As I said, kayoed by a pretzel, and not the only such mishap,
    although the only one blamed on a pretzel. As I said, possibly a
    cover story. If Bush's doctors suspected something else, it's
    extremely unlikely that they would have made any suspicions public,
    and it has nothing to do with Bush. Top pols are "protected".

    Yes, as a wee one I heard many radio programs that the bigguns
    listened to, including Fred Allen's. But that was Senator Claghorn.
    My memories of Foghorn Leghorn are much more vivid.

    It's not worth the effort to describe the point. You see what you
    want to see.

    No, it's not the closest, unless you think that Adolph's election
    rules out the possibility that he was a dictator.


    There's nothing wrong with corporations making money, and many of
    these are owned and run by both liberals and conservatives, so your
    "annoying" statement is hogwash, nothing but a debating tactic, and
    possibly something else that you'll never understand.

    It should have been obvious, for several reasons.

    You see a self-professed Republican website as the purveyor of
    "looney left-wing conspiracy theories"? I doubt that your opinion
    would change if you found similar claims in the writings of Pat
    Buchanan and William F. Buckley. Some people that display American
    flags are simply being patriotic. On the other hand, I'd guess that
    a much greater percentage of those with fascistic tendencies are the
    biggest flag wavers. It's long been a reprehensible tactic of the
    worst right wing politicians to wear American flag lapel pins and
    try to smear as "un-American" those who don't.

    Color me unsurprised. :) Most of those that tried to do that
    were clearly fascists. Most people really have no idea what that
    word means, even as they bristle when they hear it used. I recall
    hearing right wing radio talk show host Bob Grant defend and admire
    Benito Mussolini. I suppose you're also unfamiliar with him, too?
    (Grant, not Mussolini). Grant and the aforementioned Malzberg were
    at one time part of the right wing lineup that filled nearly all of
    the slots on WABC (770AM) radio.
     
    ASAAR, Apr 26, 2009
  19. Paul Furman

    ASAAR Guest

    I didn't read this until after posting my own correction. Foghorn
    Leghorn may be better known today and as I said, I recall him more
    vividly than I remember Senator Claghorn.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foghorn_Leghorn


    BTW, when I invoked the newsreader's spell checker, the only word
    it flagged for correction was "Claghorn", and the first word
    suggested for its replacement was "Leghorn". Looney Tunes indeed!
     
    ASAAR, Apr 26, 2009
  20. Paul Furman

    frank Guest

    Interestingly where I was in NY did not sell glass lenses. Only
    plastic. Weren't a lot out in rural area. So don't know if that
    extends to larger cities.

    Will see about where I am now. Wife needs a new pair and seems to
    scratch her lenses a bit. Company in Missouri would guarantee lenses
    for scratches for a year. So would get a free pair.
     
    frank, Apr 27, 2009
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.