Regardless of whether or not you ever plan to conduct refractions with a wavefront aberrometer or similar instrument, having a focimeter that is capable of displaying results in 0.01-diopter steps would still be useful for dispensing modern free-form lenses, since many of these lenses are supplied with a compensated prescription calculated to that precision.This is a non issue....
Best regards,
Darryl
Darryl J. Meister, ABOM
I know only about
Lensmeter Lensometer LM240P INT.
But i don't have believe on any electronic machine. Any time it can create problem.
Last edited by combly22; 09-09-2012 at 09:08 AM.
I purchased thetop of the line Huvitz to replace my Zeiss-Humphrey auto model. Except for luminous transmission, it is superior to the Zeiss humphrey in every way. And reasoanble. At VEW they're selling them for a show special of $2500.
I'd much rather have this vs the manual, but I still use both.
B
We're looking at buying one as well. Trying to buy an auto lensometer (at least one that won't be outdated in 2 years) is a difficult prospect in the newly-emerging market of instruments that deal with digital freeform lenses. With the digital freeform trend, and considering that we dispense a lot of these lenses (including iScription lenses), we're looking for a unit that can verify compensated Rx's from the lab (to .01), map progressive lenses that are unidentifiable (can't be found in the PAL identifier book), and allow for efficient reading of presenting lenses at the time of an exam.
The Huvitz HLM-7000 looks good ($3200 normal retail), but doesn't map. The only ones that map (that I'm aware of) are the new Wave Lens Pro by Visionix (part of a recent merger of Briot and Luneau; it's about $7K), and the Topcon EZ-200 (aka "EZ Bake"; $12K). Everything else in the same feature group as the Huvitz runs 2-5K depending on quality and country of origin. I was told to avoid Chinese-made units, but South Korean (including Huvitz) are less risky. We've been looking at Huvitz, Nidek, Visionix, Topcon, Reichert, Tomey, and others. On Optiboard I hear the best reports on the Huvitz and Nidek.
If there is an auto lensometer that's in the 3-5K range that could map progressives, and isn't a risky brand, I'm all ears. Anybody out there try the Visionix Wave Lens Pro? If so, please comment! I'm not going to even bother looking at the EZ-200. In my opinion they are priced far too high for the market they're trying to reach (ECP, not labs...labs that are doing digital freeform work have their high-end lens analyzers hooked up to their freeform generators). So, what say ye?
thanks,
roscoe
Why do you perceive a need for mapping progressives, and what makles you think the data rendered is beneficial to distinguishing between say, a Zeiss Individual and an IOT design?
You ask a good question. I hope that I'm not missing something really obvious in asking all of my questions. To be honest, I'm earnestly and constantly trying to figure which lens product is most useful or needful, and find that this can be very difficult with progressive lenses and the emerging design technologies that compensate for optical performance. Maybe I'm asking the wrong questions, but I'll answer your good question with several more questions that led me to set out in search for an auto-lensometers. Note: these questions might make me sound stupid, but I'm trying to make a point.
1) Why do lens reps talk so much about the benefit of one lens design over another? Specifically, why does lens A1 work better for John Doe (the way it "maps" out uniquely) verses lens B4?
2) Why does my Shamir rep whip out lens maps as a way of differentiating their product from the competition?
3) Why would an auto lensometer manufacturer make a unit with the mapping feature unless someone found that information helpful in verifying/analyzing eyewear?
4) With the plethora of lens designs out there, how else are we (the folks who sell and dispense lenses vs. those who design the lenses) supposed to objectively learn and discover the unique characteristics of PAL designs, apart from the marketing packet that every lens maker gives you? Seriously, if you look at three different sell sheets for three competing lenses (sold by different makers), each of them would say that their lens is the best and most advanced product to meet every person's needs all the time. Am I wrong on that one?
5) Apart from trying a bunch of PAL designs myself (which my Rx doesn't require yet), or doing haphazard trial and error on patients, how am I to understand the PAL design dynamics? Moreover, how am I to analyze/evaluate the off-label PAL brands that are becoming more and more common (and many of which don't show up in the PAL identifier yet)? To make it even more confusing, most of these off-label brands (with unique design/maps) are made by the "big boys", supposedly just slightly tweaked and repackaged. How are we supposed to know if the tweaked maps/designs are better or worse for our patient?
6) Since I'm becoming convinced that a sophisticated auto lensometer is becoming more and more of a necessity, am I wrong to think that a lens mapping feature should be included to assist me and my optical staff?
Thanks for hearing all of my additional questions. I'm a ready pupil, Barry, so please help me out. Thanks again, in advance.
Barry, I didn't hear back from you...hope my additional questions weren't irritating. In the meantime, after conducting an informal survey of about 15 different private practices in our area regarding auto-lensometers, I'm leaning heavily toward the Huvitz HLM-7000. The features and warranty seem very hard to beat. I don't think the show special price you paid will be seen again, though...even at Vision Expo East. As my southern Illinois kin-folk would say, "You got while the gettin was good!"
I recently heard from our Zeiss rep that Zeiss had been working on a new auto lensometer, but I'm waiting to hear about the specs and an eventual release date. Not sure if it's worth holding out to see what they'll do, as we're already heavily invested in Zeiss equipment.
What 3 automatic lensometers would you recomend?
1. For final inspection of surfaced SV blanks.
2. For final inspection of Progressive conversationally surfaced lenses (add does not make a difference need distance RX verification only)
3. For final inspection of SV edged and mounted in the frame lenses to measure Axis, RX and PD (maybe)
I am ok with 3 different units if need to be!
Thanks
Maybe there is one that can do all 3!?!?:)
Why do lens reps talk so much....................................
Originally Posted by roscoe
Lens reps..................are sales poeple and its in their blood that the products they are selling are the best at the best price, way better in any aspect. They have to push their own product ahead of any others.
I just hold a patients glasses up in the air, wink my left eye shut, and wiggle the glasses back and forth and hand neutralize like an expert. Impresses the heck out of the patient. Seriously, I've done a lot of nursing home work and it was just easier than lugging a lensometer around.
But in the office, I rely heavily on a Huvitz. Can't beat it for speed, accuracy, fairly quick learning curve for a novice, VFL auto-find feature, and cost. I would recommend them.
Thanks, fjpod, for the Huvitz recommendation (affirming Barry's recommendation).
Now, regarding your quote:
OK, you piqued my curiosity. I follow you about holding up the lens to find the laser marks and to make a rough determination of an Rx's strength (whether myope/hyperope, and rotating for cyl), but "hand neutralize like an expert"...please expound a bit more.
Also, Chris, I completely see your point about lens reps. My point in referencing them was that there are certainly a variety of lens designs that have dramatic differences in functional performance...and I'm just asking if that doesn't suggest a possible benefit from being able to distinguish one from the other...without SIMPLY relying on the lens rep talking points or the marketing materials. Wouldn't a PAL mapping feature be helpful? By the way, I've determined that there aren't enough units with a mapping feature out right now to make it an affordable option. There are only two units out now that map (at least, at a non-lab price point). Therefore we're proceeding with a purchase of a Huvitz and we'll revisit the market in a few years.
Last edited by Roscoe; 03-06-2013 at 02:28 PM.
well........I'm exaggerating a bit. Hand neutralization is really not useful with progressives...but it sure impresses the patient. If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bull$$$t.
mmmmmm...I just re-read your post, ...and maybe you are not familiar with hand neutralization? There has to be a website that explains it better than I can. I did a ton of it when I used to work in nursing homes...and before there were progressives.
This is the smartest comment I've seen in a while. The (marketing) idea that people can distinguish in a pair of glasses such a small difference in refraction is just wrong...remember that the effective rx changes depending on exactly how those frames are sitting on the person's face, and that as soon as they leave your office those frames will no longer be sitting perfectly, so even if your refraction and lens is correct within 0.00001 diopters, as soon as that patient moves, their effective rx is now off. It makes the idea of "wavefront" lenses even worse. When we do lasik, and you do a wavefront correction, if the correction isn't perfectly aligned to the abberation of the eye, the higher order abberations add up instead of correcting/cancelling out. So again, in a pair of glasses, if they are "wavefront" design, and those specs are not perfectly aligned at all times, the vision will actually be worse than a non-wavefront design.
Rant over. Sorry.
As for lensmeters, I actually use an old Marco spectrum / visionix lensmeter. It's pretty good, and can show a "map" of the lens, so when a patient gets a lens from a box-store or online, and complains they can't see, I can easily show them why. I do have a manual lensmeter as a backup, also.
I often see these comments from those that refract, wherein they imply that 0.25D precision in a refraction is often a dream, and therefore that FF lenses and the like have an implied sham about their calculated Rxs. Misses the point completely of these lenses.
Also, as long as refractionists use 20 foot lanes (0.16D off), and dialated pupils/cycloplegics, and drop small amounts of cyl powers from the final Rxs, us dispensers will continue to have problems with eyewear.
B
Ummm...I wasn't talking about freeform lenses, which I do believe in and use exclusively. I was talking about the idea of "wavefront" lenses. Perhaps the reps/salespeople who spoke to me about wavefront lenses really meant freeform...I don't know. Freeform is great. Wavefront means that a highly detailed topographic map of the cornea is matched to a highly detailed topographically generated correction...that's absolutely impossible to make work in a pair of specs...considering that the eye itself rotates based on sitting vs lying position, even if the frame was permanently fixed to a person's head, you'd need the lens to rotate automatically in concert with the eyeball. Anyway, sorry to hijack the thread.
May have beem talking about the defunct IZON, or E's misuse of the same term.
B
I sense an OD, because you're right on about refracting sensitivity.
Hijack again:
Chuck, I think it's a aberrometer that provides the wavefront voodoo, not a topographer, but I could be mistaken.
Barry, you know that there aren't "problems" with glasses because of the limitations of the refraction process. You take that back.
Listen, 0.12D in "defocus" or "cylinder" or spherical abberration or pentafoil or whatever doesn't matter. For crying out loud, I think a smudge on a lens matters more, and you know what people's glasses look like. Position of wear is a figment of our imagination. Accuracy has it's limits. Wavefront is way overrated.
Nonetheless, in the lens manufacturing process, I do think that customization is oftentimes helpful in individual cases, and always helpful for a population. I just don't see us needing to double check things to that degree of accuracy (sorry to Darryl, even though I know what I do because of his benevolence). What are you going to do? Send the lens back because it's off 0.03D? Uhh...
Last edited by drk; 03-13-2013 at 05:03 PM.
going back to the original question
how about marco nidek LM-600PD?????
Looks good
Correct, but I think you're misinterpreting and/or overanalysing what I was saying. By topographic map I wasn't talking about a printout from a corneal topographer, and yes, I realize more than corneal power is at work in a wavefront correction. I was using the term in the generic sense...an hrt generates a topographic map of the retina and nerve, but it's not a corneal topographer. From Santini's post, however, it sounds like the use of the term wavefront by the reps is probably either referring to a lens that doesn't exist anymore, or they are using the term to mean freeform, which isn't the same thing.
Anyway, the LM-anything is good. I really thing it's hard to go wrong with whatever lensmeter you choose. They're all pretty darn good at this point. I'd more worry about integration with whatever emr you're going to be using. Mine, when I bought it, only integrated with marco/nidek...it's really nice to press a button and have it shoot into the appropriate field in the emr.
Last edited by chuckbednarik; 03-14-2013 at 07:48 AM.
Got it. Rare and cool to have an OMD post on this site.
BTW, what EMR do you use?
Sounds like Huvitz is integrated with OM
Ok, drk, I take it back out of genuine respect for all you do here.
it was overly simplistic (a tendency of mine!)
However, after my experience with Dyops (www.dyops.org), and learning more about the latest analytical tools for determining refractive endpoints, it is clear that we are poised to move beyond the wall that has separated the electronic advancement of objective refractive from the analogue world of subjective refractive. Combine the precision of examining retinal images with the metrics of PSF with a participatory (subjective) process that no longer relies on the large, grey areas that currently surround blur discernment means that far more precise refractive endpoints are just over the horizon.
I, for one, am excited.
B
Last edited by Barry Santini; 03-16-2013 at 02:18 PM.
You are kind, Barry.
I think if an automated system could save time and effort and still be as accurate as our current method, it would be awesome.
More accuracy is always welcome, but our bigger need may be more accuracy across a population not an individual. If a machine can do something more consistently and need less human input, it would be good.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks