Well I'm saying it doesn't help if the distance between the temples is
too narrow. The industry seems to have gone from the large 80s style to
small frames without compensating for keeping the temple distance the
same (at least here in Ireland with Specsavers and the like). The
result is frames that squash the face and they slap in the spring
hinges to compensate which is just silly.
I believe the US consumer get a better deal here - more chains means
you won't put up with that nonsense!
I wear contacts for sport, they are certainly better in this regard.
They start to burn after 8 hours or so though, probably because I
seldom wear them. I could try wearing them more and see. Or lasik of
course!
Maybe having a squint when I was young might be a factor - I had an
muscle operation on my right eye to correct it...
Thanks,
Conor
Charles wrote:
> Are you saying the poblematic glasses are smaller frames too? There
> might be something to that. My cylinder Rx is similar to yours and I
> was having fits with strangeness of vision (not bad acuity). My
> experience is that the eye docs don't really know how to help if acuity
> is good and you have no blatant binocularity problem. I went through a
> course of vision therapy trying to fix my problem. It may have helped
> some, but the real fix was to switch from glasses to RGP contacts. You
> might consider it.
>
> Conor wrote:
>
> > Not sure if this has been done to death but what the hell. I'm
> > wondering can a 0.25 diopter difference in cylinder have the
> > effect I'm seeing. After all I get the impression that that's
> > "equivalent" to 0.125 or so in sphere.
> >
> > My cylinder in my right eye is -.75 according to opticians, but it
> > used to be -1.00 and was much better. Of course back in the day
> > my optician rather than a salesbot did the fitting/pant tilt etc and
> > glasses had wider frames so they fit better and were comfortable.
> >
> > My vision with the glasses I'm wearing is slightly odd (the
> > problem being that opticians take that statement as "you're
> > imagining things"). Each eye on its own doesn't seem too bad, but
> > binocularly it's like the effect you get when you cross your eyes
> > (a little bit), or tilt your glasses. It's most apparant when you look
> > straight ahead so I've a tendency to sit slightly to the right of my
> > monitor...
> >
> > Sorry to waffle but I'll throw in my history here. Um, at least in as
> > much as I can remember (my original optician refused to give me
> > my history - yes, I know he's required to but he just fobbed me off):
> >
> > Prehistory:
> > -3.25 sph
> >
> > 1990-93 No problems with these:
> > R: -4.75 / -1.00x95
> > L: -4.75 / -0.25x80
> >
> > 1993-97 Not too bad as far as I remember! A little odd for reading.
> > R: -5.25 / -1.00 x 90
> > L: -5.50 / -0.50 x 85
> >
> > 1997-2005 Problematic at times. Centres were wrong too (too
> > wide). Better when I bent my right earpiece up a bit...
> > R: -5.50 / -0.75 x 90
> > L: -5.50 / -0.50 x 75
> >
> > 2005 - now Bleugh. Centres right. Fit not great..
> > Gonna get lasik if opticians won't care enough..
> > R: -5.75 / -0.75 x 90
> > L: -5.75 / -0.50 x 75
> >
> > Maybe I should just go self prescribe...!
> >
> > Conor.
|
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
