Have any of you had laser vision correction?

[Tom Westbrook]

Having had the joys of aging affect my eyes two years ago (presbyopia), I feel your pain. I have been moderately nearsighted since I was about 15. I got progressive bifocals and they work quite well. I focus on the ground glass at normal distances to coarse focus, and then use a loupe with my glasses on for critical focusing. I never take my glasses off to focus.

I've known a few people who have had lasik and they all seem to like it. I didn't like the odds myself: the thought of something going wrong and not having clear vision is just too great a risk. Glasses work fine for me.

If I were going to do it I'd find a reputable Dr. who has done a lot of them successfully and go have a long talk with him about my concerns. I'd guess a good Dr. would let you know the risks involved with your own eyes and help you make a decision you would be comfortable with.

[Chris Gittins]

For whatever its worth, an ex-girlfriend of mine was/is an ophthalmologist. Lasik was one of her specialties. She wore glasses and, to the best of my knowledge, so did all of her colleagues. Enough said.

[Oren Grad]

Anne -

It really depends on how risk-averse you are. I wouldn't go anywhere near it myself, despite being severely near-sighted. I consider my vision to be much too precious to take any chances on surgical procedures that are not absolutely necessary.

That said, although personal testimonials like you're getting here are a good way to get some sense of the range of experiences that are possible, do not base a decision solely on these - this is not a representative sample, even of photographers.

If you do consider it seriously, read all the literature you can describing the way the procedure works and the nature of typical complications. You should find out how many procedures have been done by the specific physicians you are looking at, and also their short- and long-term complication rates. If they won't tell you, then cross them off your list. If they have done very few procedures, also cross them off your list.

[John Kasaian]

Anne,

Like I said I'm a first generation diamond scalpel patient. With that said here are my observations:

RK dosen't halt the aging process.

RK can free you from wearing glasses for many years.

If wearing glasses is presents a problem---it did for me, since my prescription lenses were so thick they made me get plastic lenses and the plastics back them were was too soft and I was working in dirty, gritty conditions where plastic lenses were ruined within a day or two---RK is a very viable alternative, but go to the best Doc you can find. Bargain eye surgeons are like bargain parachutes;-)

I wouldn't do it for cosmetic reasons. Period.

My surgery was in 1984(Orwellian, eh?) I started using lenses again for distance around 1995, reading around 1997, and bifocals about 2000. I could undergo the proceedure again( my insurance wouldn't pay for it this time, however) but my glasses are nowhere near as heavy or as prone to damage as they were back in 1984, so I'm not.

FWIW, there are two highly qualified surgeons doing the proceedure in my little town and niether of them wears glasses.

[Ken Lee]

Lasik at Mass Eye and Ear Clinic in Boston - by one of the doctors that invented it.

Changed my life. I still remember going swimming without glasses for the first time in decades, and looking up at the clouds, sharp as a tack. Heavenly.

[Leonard Evens]

Lasik surgery corrects myopia. It does nothing to deal with presbyopia, the inability to focus closeup, that develops with age. You would still have to wear glasses to see closeup. Since when one is fiddling with a view camera, it is necessary to shift one's focus from near to far regularly, it is necessary for people with presbyopia to wear bifocals or progressive lenses.

Your developing presbyopia is not a reason for Lasik surgery.

I never had lasik surgery, but I did have my cataracts removed when they got so bad I had trouble seeing. When this is done, the eye doctor replaces the lens in the eye with a plastic lens. The plastic lens can usually be chosen so that almost all the myopia in the eye is corrected. My doctor got me from about 20/800 in both eyes to close to 20/20. So I can now see in the distance better than I have for some 60 years. But I still need glasses to see closeup. In principle, I could just use reading glasses, but taking the off and putting them on every time I want to see something closeup is too much trouble. It is much easier just to wear bifocals all the time.

If your vision is corrected to close to 20/20 for distant vision, then you ought to be able to use a loupe without glasses, since the loupe is set up so it works right when you eye is focused on infinity. But you won't be able to see anything else on the camera that close without some sort of correction as in bifocals.

[Bruce Watson]

Anne,

You could use the presbyopia to your advantage. You are going to have to get some form of reading glasses no matter what - as Leonard explains. So, get really good ones!

What I did was get my O. D. to give me a prescription for a pair of "photo" glasses. These fully correct for my astigmatism, and give me sharp focus at about 6 inches from the ground glass, resulting in about a 2x magnification. I can see the entire ground glass without moving my head, very sharp indeed, and with both eyes at the same time (which is much better than the monocular vision you get with a loupe, at least for me). The photo glasses work great for composition and for fine focusing.

You could use such photo glasses with a loupe (a 4x loupe with my glasses would give you about 6x magnification, the magnification factors add IIRC) if you wanted.

Just a thought....

[John Z.]

I actually am an ophthalmologist, and had done LASIK for many years. I never had a serious complication of any kind in all the years (9)that I did the procedure. I would recommend it, and would consider it myself if I needed any correction. A few caveats though; LASIK is great if you are a candidate, but can create problems if you are not, meaning outside the range, dry eyes, or other problems. A well qualified person has to evaluate your eyes, hopefully a well qualified surgeon that takes the time to do things well.

The second caveat is that you have to use the best technology, which means you have to pay a higher price, and not bargain shop, and also choose the best surgeon around.

The only problems I have seen have been using old technology, or surgeons pushing beyond acceptable limits, or performing surgery on someone who was not a good candidate to begin with.
I actually do not do LASIK now, having focused more on other procedures. I believe that those that specialize in LASIK are now best suited to do the procudure, usually at a dedicated laser center. I am still amazed that in the last two years I have worked with a highly competent surgeon in my area, no compications for any of my patients of any kind. LASIK is very safe when done properly.

[paulr]

"What I did was get my O. D. to give me a prescription for a pair of "photo" glasses. These fully correct for my astigmatism, and give me sharp focus at about 6 inches from the ground glass, resulting in about a 2x magnification. I can see the entire ground glass without moving my head, very sharp indeed, and with both eyes at the same time (which is much better than the monocular vision you get with a loupe, at least for me). The photo glasses work great for composition and for fine focusing.

You could use such photo glasses with a loupe (a 4x loupe with my glasses would give you about 6x magnification, the magnification factors add IIRC) if you wanted."

Jock Sturgess goes a step farther than this--he has custom TRIFOCALS for photography. The innermost lens is an 8x loupe for focussing. Other than that, they're normal bifocals. He says it's part of what makes him so fast with the 8x10.

I've never even owned an 8X loupe ...

[paulr]

one other thing ...
if you climb or ski or plan to spend any time at high altitude, be sure to bring this up with the doctor before deciding on the surgery. I know of more than one climber who has had disasterous results--the procedure weakens the eye against pressure, so at altitude the eye gradually enlarges, developing increasingly severe miopia day after day. people at very high altitudes can come close to blindness (they get better gradually when they go back down). still, it's no fun, and the only way they have to compensate is to bring several pairs of different strength glasses on a route, knowing that their vision will slowly deteriorate.

i believe this is only a worry with one or two of the procedures they do, but i'm not sure which ones.