>Actually, I see well up close because
>I have monovision : )
>
Only -1 diopter monovision so this puts you in focus at 1 meter. Any closer and youll need accomodation or reading glasses.
>Ace we will have to just agree
>to disagree. I did not
>like seeing 20/40, you do.
>Everyone is different.
That I understand. I still think too much focus is placed on distance vision, especially among presbyopes. It appears to be society's way that not seeing at all from near is OK but any blur or not seeing 20/20 in the distance isnt OK. I dont care what others tell me, I consider 20/40 better than 20/20 because I am also presbyopic(YES its possible at any age and not just old age) and my undercorrection lets me see clear from intermediate. I will be buying another pair of distance glasses to replace the ones I had that got scratched but they are useless for near, I must take them off to see clear from near.
>I just
>want people to understand that if
>they ask to be undercorrected they
>may end up unhappy with their
>distance vision and with LASIK overall,
>and looking at the costs and
>risks of enhancement.
And I know many people who got fully corrected and were unhappy with the fact they could no longer see/read from near. They lost their near vision they took for granted all their lives. Imagine being nearsighted all your life then suddenly you cant SEE from near? With presbyopia, you must choose between seeing from near or distance. If you choose distance, you better hope you dont get overcorrected or you wont see clearly at ANY distance. If you choose near and get overcorrected, youll probably be plano instead of farsighted. I know several people who got overcorrected and they said lasik was a total waste. They also miss being able to take their glasses off to read!
>I did
>not ask to be under corrected
>but regressed over about 4 months
>as often happens when you are
>fairly myopic as I was.
Thats common and sometimes expected even.
>While 20/40 was WAY better than
>prelasik it still wasn't where I
>wanted to be.
seems funny comming from your 20/800 vision, you improved 20 times but want another 2 times better going from 20/40 to 20/20 and risk overcorrection and other complications for a tiny difference. You took a risk for a HUGE difference, 20/800 to 20/40 and another risk for a tiny difference.
>My surgeon provides
>free enhancements for life so eventually
>when the monovision isn't enough to
>compensate for my prebyopia, I will
>probably have my other eye enhanced
>so my distance vision is sharp.
and whats wrong with your distance vision now? If I understand, its 20/25 instead of 20/20. You probably wont be happy if your non dormant eye is 20/20 or worse yet, gets slightly overcorrected. Youll lose your ability to see from midrange. If you can tolerate monovision, I see no reason to give it up. If you do so, expect to see blurry out to 5 or 6 feet. If you keep your monovision, youll see clear as close as 3 feet. Can you see your computer monitor clearly? Can you see someones face clearly when talking? Thanks to your monovision.
> I would rather have sharp
>distance vision and use reading glasses
>than the other way around...that is
>my prefernce, yours is opposite.
I can not tell you what to do, but understand that youll actually increase your dependance on glasses unless you dont read and just use your eyes for distance such as athlates. If you do alot of reading and computer, you may be wearing glasses almost full time again, makes me kinda question the whole lasik thing doing much to reduce your dependancy on glasses. It does a fine job if your not presbyopic but if you are, you still need glasses most of the time anyway. Yes you can improve your distance vision but you will still not see clear and need glasses.
>People need to make up their own
>minds as to what works for
>them. Try things out with
>glasses or contacts first. See
>if you are happy being undercorrected.
> I think that is much
>better advise....Sue
Good idea. I guess it seems to be society's influence that reading glasses is "the norm" so some people choose distance even if it means increasing their dependancy on glasses and needing reading glasses most of the time instead of keeping your near vision and only needing distance glasses occasionally. I know a few low myopes who got lasik and traded their near vision for distance. Some were very unhappy, others felt the tradeoff worth it. One guy was -2 and lasik gave him 20/20 distance but his dependancy on glasses was NOT reduced! He now needs readers for EVERYTHING less than 5 or 6 feet away. He has several pairs of different power readers.
Ultimately Sue, the choice is yours. Youll be wearing glasses almost as much as I am now and im about a -4. I really enjoy taking my glasses off and seeing clearly when I read or eat. I do want to be a little less myopic, but retain enough myopia NOT to need readers. Somewhere at -1.5 would sound good. Even if I got down to -2 or -2.5 this is a world of a difference from my -4.
My logic is that at -2 or therebouts you can see perfect from half meter. This means you can just hold books, newspaper, magazines about a foot and a half away. You can sit upright with the book on your lap, look down and see it clearly. Same when you eat or use the computer. Things in the distance will be a little blurry, but I can just move closer or take my -2 glasses out and see perfect in the distance then take them off. Since I use my eyes for near much more than distance, it makes sense to me. Maybe you use your eyes for distance much more?
