You and Your Glasses

[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).

 

[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!

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]

Hi Dr. Ron

Hi Dr. Ron

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!

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]

Dr. Ron

Dr. Ron

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.

 

[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]

Yes

Yes

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

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.

 

[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.

 

[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]

Yes

Yes

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 ?

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]

Ron

Ron

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, Rose K.
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.