Have you guys heard of the new Younger Camber lens that's just come out? My boss likes the Essilor Ideal. Have you all had a chance to try the Camber? I'm trying to get him into the Camber. Or anything but the Ideal. :tongue:
Printable View
Have you guys heard of the new Younger Camber lens that's just come out? My boss likes the Essilor Ideal. Have you all had a chance to try the Camber? I'm trying to get him into the Camber. Or anything but the Ideal. :tongue:
If you were looking for info about Camber, here's a PDF from Younger describing Camber:
www.feaind.com/info/art_science_camber.pdf
Camber uses a variable front curve lens blank, as compared to a spherical semi-finished blank for most other free-form. This allows it to have a much better match for the best base curve for every part of the Rx.
It's also different from dual-sided progressives. Dual sided lenses tend to have problems with decentration, corridor length, inset, etc. This is because the design on the front is fixed. Camber doesn't have this problem, since the free-form calculations can be made to allow for the optimal placement of the lens design in any part of the lens blank.
I know, Camber seems to be far and away better than the ideal but I have no idea why he won't switch. Is the ideal really that great?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightbender27
absolutely not
Usually the best way to get someone to understand the benefits is to just get them to try it. I'm not sure how many people have had the chance yet to try out Camber for themselves, but I've had great feedback from those that have tried it.
I don't need a PAL yet, so I don't have any first hand experience with it.
The camber, in all of its forms and brand names, is quickly becoming the top notch high end lens in my little shop. Patients are thrilled with the smoothness of progression of power and most importantly, a significantly increased intermediate with the same or less amount of peripheral distortion as their current high end freeform lenses.
About 100,000 Patients are wearing Camber around the world. Response has really been exciting. Combining a variable front curve Younger blank (to match the proper base curve to the corresponding lens power) with state of the art IOT designs, have given wearers a great result. But....i am prejudiced...i have watched this lens go from a piece of paper to what I believe is the highest technology currently available anywhere.
Camber lenses are really great and a computer software is used in the design, optimization and production of these lenses.
I have not tried the camber lens yet and may not fully understand the technology. I mean no offense to anyone on this thread and I do value all opinions on here, however some of the responses seem a little generic. I am an IOT client as well as Younger and I am extremely happy with all of their products.
However, I am very curious to hear peoples opinions about camber.. Is it possible that this is Younger's version of the double sided progressive? Does it not make sense for a big conventional lens manufacturer to stay in the ball game by buying a digital design company then introducing a product to replace regular SV blanks for FF? In this case a double sided prog wouldn't work bc it would go against everything IOT stands for.
Again, I'm not knocking it because i don't have any experience with it. Truthfully I hope it really is a better product and I fully intend to try it out soon.... but i am a little skeptical and would like to hear others opinions.
RJ Lopez
Optica Lopez
It's not exactly a 'double-sided' progressive in the normal sense. There's no progressive design on the front of the lens. Rather, the front of the lens has a variable base curve which, for example, may have a 6 base across the top gradually increasing to, say, an 8 base at the bottom. Since the IOT calculator knows the entire front geometry of the lens, it can position the lens design in the optimal spot on the back of the lens to best match the prescription to a base curve. Since there's no progressive on the front side, it can still decenter the design however it is needed, as opposed to a 'dual-sided' PAL where part of the progressive is on the front, so it makes variable design placement more difficult.
It optimizes the IOT designs even more in a way that seems to widen corridors compared to every other full back side design I've dispensed. You can take the lenses out of the edger, hold them up to another similar backside design in the same power and notice a difference in intermediate corridor and near zone width. It is impressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by rjlive
It achieves these aspects of a "softer" design while still maintaining exceptional peripheral vision and allows me to further customize width variable corridor lengths. Including a 20mm one which is a great thing for people who want intermediate first. I never thought I would like to dispense a 20mm corridor progressive again, but the Camber in 20mm corridor is a beautiful thing and patients love it. All this with a reliable variable inset to put the zones just where your patient needs them
The variable base curve thing sounded like marketing hype to me, then I heard that Varilux was suing over the design, then I heard Essilor lost, then I saw the lens. Then I was convinced.
RJ, send me an email or give me a call. We can get you a test pair or two out to look at (I didnt think you wore a PAL, so maybe someone else at your place.
Kurt
kgardner@iotamerica.com
most likely the price$$ is the reason he doesn't want to switch
Well you guys sound pretty convincing to me. So do all the regular IOT designs go on these lenses or are they special designs? Gonna order some up now.
thanks
RJ
Nothing like resurrecting an old thread, but I was curious about the Camber designs as well. The main lab I work with at my shop is an independent lab in the Seattle area that uses IOT designs for their in-house PALs (the H45 is my best-selling PAL in my clinic).
After reading about the Camber series, I called the lab owner to ask about his opinion on itand he...said rather unflattering things about the design. He said it looked really good on paper, but in practice, he handed out about a dozen sets of test lenses to his accounts and had nearly all as non-adapts. Considering these 12 or so people were all opticians, ODs, etc., I obviously found this a bit deflating since I was getting excited about the technology.
The lab owner told me that he works with IOT engineers to create designs specific to the lab every 1-2 years in addition to the private label designs (like the aforementioned H45) and that he had the worst luck with Camber. Does this make any sense?
Interesting. We do a lot of Camber lenses here with an in house progressive IOT lens design. We do quite well and have less than 1% return/non-adapt rate. I myself wear them. While I do like the In house IOT progressive without the Camber blank, I prefer the Camber. To me it is more comfortable. It is definitely my preferred lens. In fact, I just ordered another pair this week.
Good to hear a differing voice on the matter. I almost wonder if there's some behind-the-scenes difficulties that led the lab owner to take that stance. Either due to difference in price for the Camber blank, click fees, etc. The owner did mention that he'd re-think the situation if there was enough demand for the line.
Hi, #IOTREP here. We have had AMAZING feedback on Camber, especially the new Camber Steady. I received this (posted with permission) yesterday. "I am highly impressed with these lenses. The acuity with the Camber Steady is much clearer and comfortable than my previous premium PAL at ALL distances. I am highly impressed"
-Mike Lake Independent Optical Lab
If there is a lab having challenges with Camber we would love to investigate to see if we can help them out.
I have fit tons and tons of people with camber lenses for 5+ years. No issues at all, love them. Currently the best seems to be Camber H45 for most people IMO. It is pretty much all I use unless I need something for a persons specific lifestyle, that doesn't mind the trade offs of a more task specific lens.Quote:
Originally Posted by grudyfan13
The Camber blank will have less center thickness (reduced magnification) and a thinner profile compared to spherical blanks for hyperopic presbyopes, especially when the total power (distance + add) is more than about +5.00 D, and does so without having to use low Abbe, hi-index lenses.
Robert Martellaro