Beemermark
Veteran
Only if you have both eyes done.
count_zero
Established
I was nearsighted, but got lasik a couple years ago. Now I see 10/20. Yes that is 100% better than 20/20, equivalent to an eagle. I figure by the time I'm 50 and I start to lose my close up vision, technology will have advanced to where getting a touch-up will be significantly cheaper. Lasik is great, much better than PRK or whatever the old method was called. You can see immediately after surgery, but its blurry. Next day, most of the blurry-ness clears out. I think I was seeing 15/20 day after surgery, then it just gets better as it heals.
Last edited:
MikeL
Go Fish
I was near-sighted and my Doc said you can wear glasses now and wear them later, or you can just wear them later. If you don't have corrective surgery now, you'll still need to wear glass for far vision later, but I guess you could have bifocals with no power or not have glasses on when you are reading.
I couldn't be happier, my eyes healed as expected (not everybody heals the same, e.g. scars on skin or eye). It took me about 3 weeks before I stopped reaching over to pick up my glasses first thing in the morning. Some people don't care enough, but it sure made a difference to me. Walking in the rain without looking through a water covered windshield has been nice, or having them fog up coming in from the cold.
I did some research and went to a place with a good reputation and record (U.C. Berkeley Eye Center). I looked at the numbers and pros and cons. It's a gamble, but with good odds, and I'm not conservative about this like some. Gather all the facts, and stay away from uneducated opinions, would be the best advice I could give. For me, the experience talking with people was like a Rorschach test for how conservative they were about the odds- any risk was too much for some.
And I'd stay away from having it done at the mall, of course.
I couldn't be happier, my eyes healed as expected (not everybody heals the same, e.g. scars on skin or eye). It took me about 3 weeks before I stopped reaching over to pick up my glasses first thing in the morning. Some people don't care enough, but it sure made a difference to me. Walking in the rain without looking through a water covered windshield has been nice, or having them fog up coming in from the cold.
I did some research and went to a place with a good reputation and record (U.C. Berkeley Eye Center). I looked at the numbers and pros and cons. It's a gamble, but with good odds, and I'm not conservative about this like some. Gather all the facts, and stay away from uneducated opinions, would be the best advice I could give. For me, the experience talking with people was like a Rorschach test for how conservative they were about the odds- any risk was too much for some.
And I'd stay away from having it done at the mall, of course.
hlockwood
Well-known
Does anyone have an opinion about the chain, TLC Centers, which is a (near) national group that does Lasik? FWIW, they have a very happy Tiger Woods endorsing them.
Harry
Harry
alexz
Well-known
yes, I picked my M7 0.85 quite recently, but in particular for my 50mm and longer lens. I have my 35mm cron "welded" to my M6 though.
Having said that, with my glasses(approx. -5 or -6 on both eyes) I can barely see 35mm frame in my M6, or probably just enough to see it but nothing beyond..
iamzip
Ambitious, but rubbish
I think one of the things to consider is that the success rate has improved as time has gone on, so that the risk of halos and other problems has become very small. So if you had looked into it years ago, things may have changed since then.
Ronald M
Veteran
Ronald M
Veteran
Mono vision setup made permanent? OMG
After nearly sixty years of wearing glasses and never getting a perfect pair I started to investigate.
Turns out they do a thing called balance the correction. According to one retired optomatrist, one eye is set to to be correct for distance and one the other corrected more for close even though I wear bifocals. It drove me crazy my whole life before I found they were using my non dominent right eye for distance. Most rightys are right eye dominent, not me. That was a big improvement, but still the glasses are off.
Then I found out about the "balance" BS. That last step is going to be stopped forthwith.
Many doctors no longer do it because they can`t do it correctly and it causes eye strain regardless.
I just can`t imaginge building it in with surgery and with far more radical correction than balancing an eyeglass perscription.
After nearly sixty years of wearing glasses and never getting a perfect pair I started to investigate.
Turns out they do a thing called balance the correction. According to one retired optomatrist, one eye is set to to be correct for distance and one the other corrected more for close even though I wear bifocals. It drove me crazy my whole life before I found they were using my non dominent right eye for distance. Most rightys are right eye dominent, not me. That was a big improvement, but still the glasses are off.
Then I found out about the "balance" BS. That last step is going to be stopped forthwith.
Many doctors no longer do it because they can`t do it correctly and it causes eye strain regardless.
I just can`t imaginge building it in with surgery and with far more radical correction than balancing an eyeglass perscription.
Sanders McNew
Rolleiflex User
I was Lasiked in 2001. The doctor
undercorrected my weak eye (to
help with reading) and then botched
the cut for the procedure on my
dominant eye -- the one I use to
focus my cameras. After it healed
I was left with doubled vision in the
dominant eye, and undercorrected
vision in the other. By the charts,
I see about 20/40 now.
Having said all that: If I could do it
again, knowing the result in advance,
I would still do it. After a lifetime of
fumbling and steamed glasses and
contact lenses, it is liberating to be
able to get around without all that.
My brain has compensated for the
doubling -- I rarely notice it any more.
It has some effect on my ability to
focus my cameras, but so did my
glasses and contact lenses.
No process is perfect. I am the outlier
but there is risk; for me, it was worth
the risk.
undercorrected my weak eye (to
help with reading) and then botched
the cut for the procedure on my
dominant eye -- the one I use to
focus my cameras. After it healed
I was left with doubled vision in the
dominant eye, and undercorrected
vision in the other. By the charts,
I see about 20/40 now.
Having said all that: If I could do it
again, knowing the result in advance,
I would still do it. After a lifetime of
fumbling and steamed glasses and
contact lenses, it is liberating to be
able to get around without all that.
My brain has compensated for the
doubling -- I rarely notice it any more.
It has some effect on my ability to
focus my cameras, but so did my
glasses and contact lenses.
No process is perfect. I am the outlier
but there is risk; for me, it was worth
the risk.
jke
Well-known
What is the cost of Lasik vs. the cost of an M6/M7/MP with a .58 finder? And what are the comparative risks?
I have glasses and shot a 28mm lens with a .72 finder M7 and an external 28mm finder for a number of years. The only time I was frustrated by that arrangement was when I had to focus/compose in low light and when I put the camera back in or took it out of my bag.
Then I got a .58 finder M7 and I barely ever use the .72. The .58 finder with a 28mm lens is terrific. All edges are plenty viewable with glasses.
I am a birdwatcher. I have friends and family who have had Lasik surgery. They all say "Oh it is perfect. My vision is perfect." But I can find signs and details at reasonable distances that I can read easily with my glasses on that they can't tell me scratch about.
In short, I think different people have different definitions of perfect eyesight. I have yet to meet someone who has had Lasik who could see the things that I would like to be able to see without glasses. If I have to put glasses on to see a bird at the top of a tree or soaring in a bright sky, then the risk and cost are not worth it for me.
You have to make your own decision based on your own needs and demands.
I have glasses and shot a 28mm lens with a .72 finder M7 and an external 28mm finder for a number of years. The only time I was frustrated by that arrangement was when I had to focus/compose in low light and when I put the camera back in or took it out of my bag.
Then I got a .58 finder M7 and I barely ever use the .72. The .58 finder with a 28mm lens is terrific. All edges are plenty viewable with glasses.
I am a birdwatcher. I have friends and family who have had Lasik surgery. They all say "Oh it is perfect. My vision is perfect." But I can find signs and details at reasonable distances that I can read easily with my glasses on that they can't tell me scratch about.
In short, I think different people have different definitions of perfect eyesight. I have yet to meet someone who has had Lasik who could see the things that I would like to be able to see without glasses. If I have to put glasses on to see a bird at the top of a tree or soaring in a bright sky, then the risk and cost are not worth it for me.
You have to make your own decision based on your own needs and demands.
umcelinho
Marcelo
I have around -8 and 2.50 astigmathism in both eyes. shooting with glasses is not nice only when I'm using the 35mm, the frame lines on both M6 and R-D1 become a bit too much on the egde. When focusing, depending on the frame I'm using, I can experience a difficulty due to the lens of my glasses moving. I have a more steady frame and one of those Tag Heuer frames that have the rubber sides. Those are terribly annoying for everything, from kissing hello to looking into a viewfinder!
When using contacts, though, framing and focusing is pretty much alright, but at night I do have some issues when focusing due to the correction of the astigmathism not being 100%.
I already talked to some specialists about having laser surgery, it's a very, very tempting solution but I'm afraid I am just not willing to take the risk. Yes, it's very unlikely that something goes wrong, but... if it did, would I be okay to accept and live with a damaged vision? I came to the conclusion that I wouldn't. I rather have minor issues (I use glasses since I can remember, and contacts are really not such a hassle) than to risk not being able to have a perfect eyesight.
When using contacts, though, framing and focusing is pretty much alright, but at night I do have some issues when focusing due to the correction of the astigmathism not being 100%.
I already talked to some specialists about having laser surgery, it's a very, very tempting solution but I'm afraid I am just not willing to take the risk. Yes, it's very unlikely that something goes wrong, but... if it did, would I be okay to accept and live with a damaged vision? I came to the conclusion that I wouldn't. I rather have minor issues (I use glasses since I can remember, and contacts are really not such a hassle) than to risk not being able to have a perfect eyesight.
I had Lasik in 2001 on my right eye only. My left could also be corrected but my vision is 20/20 after the procedure so I chose to leave the left eye as is. Both eyes have astigmatism.
I've been unable to train myself to start shooting right eyed even though the view is clearer...
Losing close focus as one ages is primarily due to increasing inelasticity muscles that focus the eye. This happens with or without lasik. I was told I'd need reading glasses at 40 but i'm almost 9 years beyond that and have no need for reading glassses yet.
I would not hesitate to recommend the procedure but in my case it didn't improve the view since I still prefer left eyed shooting.
I've been unable to train myself to start shooting right eyed even though the view is clearer...
Losing close focus as one ages is primarily due to increasing inelasticity muscles that focus the eye. This happens with or without lasik. I was told I'd need reading glasses at 40 but i'm almost 9 years beyond that and have no need for reading glassses yet.
I would not hesitate to recommend the procedure but in my case it didn't improve the view since I still prefer left eyed shooting.
count_zero
Established
Custom Lasik will run about $3-4k for both eyes. Auto focus and lens is included.
mark-b
Well-known
Lasik was money well spent for both my eyes. That was 8 years ago, and still doing just fine.
hlockwood
Well-known
Had the exam and cost quote
Had the exam and cost quote
I've had the (extensive) exam and found that because of previous cataract surgery, I'm not a candidate for Lasik. Cost would have been $5K for both eyes.
Harry
Had the exam and cost quote
I've had the (extensive) exam and found that because of previous cataract surgery, I'm not a candidate for Lasik. Cost would have been $5K for both eyes.
Harry
I paid $1k/eye.
hlockwood
Well-known
bmattock
Veteran
After years of relatively stable 'getting older' eyesight (bifocals, ya'll), I have been recently beset by problems caused by the onset of diabetes. My eyesight now varies from day to day. It's difficult to even nail down a correct prescription for me. I am also now at far greater risk of various eye-related diseases, and eventual blindness is a threat no matter what I do. So Lasik and other types of eye-correction surgeries are simply not an option for me. My eyes are too precious to me to risk fooling around with having them cut on when I can simply wear glasses instead (I also cannot wear contacts).
Life goes on. I can't see the framelines. So what? I can compose a scene anyway.
Life goes on. I can't see the framelines. So what? I can compose a scene anyway.
2001 at a lasik clinic in Austin, TX.
AshenLight
Established
I had Lasik surgery just a little over 2 years ago and haven't regretted it for a second. I just had a checkup last month and have 20/20 uncorrected after a lifetime of wearing strong glasses and contact lenses. Everyone's results will be different but my doctor has a pre-op period of a couple of months where he does some very comprehensive measurements to make sure your vision is stable before surgery. IMHO it is well worth it...
Ash
Ash