 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
I have an eye condition which makes skiing in flat light very difficult (vitreous detachment if you really want to know). I have dense floaters in both eyes (imagine looking out through spider webs which keep shifting around in each eye) so judging terrain is really hard/impossible, I just see lots of shifting patches of grey on a white background. Are there any recommendations for best goggles or lenses to maximise my ability to judge terrain in flat light? I’m using Smith goggles with very light rose lenses at the moment but I’m hoping there may be something designed more specifically for this kind of thing (but not holding my breath).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
It's very hard to give a specific recommendation at the best of times, as to some degree, personal preference of colour comes into it.
There also has to be some contrast there to be highlighted, as a lens can't manufacture some.
Most Goggle Brands have there own tech. With Smith, it's ChromaPop.
My preferred tech is Oakley Prizm.
In the case of Oakley, for low light, there is the option of a Prizm Pink/Rose base lens, or a Prizm Persimmon base lens. People usually prefer one or the other.
It may be you need to find the lens colour that suits...or it may be that you are not going to improve on what you have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Old Fartbag wrote: |
It's very hard to give a specific recommendation at the best of times, as to some degree, personal preference of colour comes into it.
There also has to be some contrast there to be highlighted, as a lens can't manufacture some.
Most Goggle Brands have there own tech. With Smith, it's ChromaPop.
My preferred tech is Oakley Prizm.
In the case of Oakley, for low light, there is the option of a Prizm Pink/Rose base lens, or a Prizm Persimmon base lens. People usually prefer one or the other.
It may be you need to find the lens colour that suits...or it may be that you are not going to improve on what you have. |
Thanks for the suggestion. I’m guessing Oakley goggles will allow changing lenses?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Swiss Toby, OFB may be correct but perhaps speak to your ophthalmologist. Granted he/she may not be able to be specific but might be able to give you some pointers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Swiss Toby wrote: |
Thanks for the suggestion. I’m guessing Oakley goggles will allow changing lenses? |
Yup. I think their easiest to change model is Airbrake XL.
If you have a top Smith ChromaPop lens, any potential benefits are likely to be marginal with Oakley. I have read good reports of the Smith ChromaPop Storm lens.
Do you have Friends that ski who use Oakley (or anything else) that you could try?
IME. Skiing in flat light is probably 75% skill and 25% Goggle lens (if using an appropriate low light, high contrast lens).
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Tue 4-01-22 23:55; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
From a very recent and entirely unscientific test in Serre Chevalier:
- my wife and I had a Smith Chromapop lenses (can't remember which model but definitely flat light lenses)
- my friend had Oakley Prizm (Rose whatever, their flat light lens)
- I also had on me a pair of cheap no-name (SK) goggles with a yellow lens - 25 or 30 euros
My friend briefly tested my Chromapop lens and thought it was slightly better than the Prizm (but really not much in it)
I gave my wife the cheap yellow lens goggles and she thought that they were miles better than the Chromapop.
I'm often a believer in quality gear making a difference in difficult conditions, but based on this experience and my previous ones with the same goggles, if I absolutely had to maximise my chances of seeing something I'd pick the yellow lens cheapies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok another take - you need to take subjective perception and personal physiology into account - to illustrate, I use Prizm, standard Oakley lens, Bolle and Smith. For me, the best low light lens is the Oakley Hi Yellow, and then the Prizm Rose. I have the Prizm Hi Pink low light, but for me the Hi Yellow just pips it. This differs from friends, who prefer the Hi Pink Prizm lens. This is totally different from my son, who far prefers the Bolle brown tints in low light. The test is simple. Find an area of snow with rippled surface, and then compare tints by holding the goggles up and down in front of your eyes, comparing other people’s low light lens with yours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@valais2, but my eyes prefer the Prizm Hi Pink over the Hi Yellow. T'was an expensive comparison as I was perfectly happy with my yellow uns until I tried a fellow snowHeads pink prizms a couple of years ago 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
@spyderjon,
Do they work at all if the sun comes out?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@musher, I wear Oakley Prism High Pinks in flat light and on bright sunny days. Some people may think they are too bright for sunny days. It’s all down to each person’s eyes and their sensitivity to various light conditions. The High Pinks were a game changer for me in flat light.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Very happy with Chromapop Rose Storm in all conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
Thanks for the replies everyone. It sounds like the simple answer is, no, there is nothing on the market designed specifically to help with this kind of visual impairment. I’ll try borrowing a few different goggles from people and see if any are better but I won’t hold my breath.
Next question: where can I go skiing where it is only ever sunny? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Swiss Toby, Flat light is a pita. If it's really flat I get nauseous.
Find trees for contrast and obvious obstacles.
Do lots and lots of very short turns, gives your brains/nerves more data to work with.
Go to lunch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| under a new name wrote: |
@Swiss Toby,
Go to lunch. |
The best piece of advice on this thread re flat light !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| under a new name wrote: |
@Swiss Toby, Flat light is a pita. If it's really flat I get nauseous.
Find trees for contrast and obvious obstacles.
Do lots and lots of very short turns, gives your brains/nerves more data to work with.
Go to lunch. |
That all sounds very familiar!  I also find following someone else helps a bit too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| musher wrote: |
@spyderjon,
Do they work at all if the sun comes out? |
Yep. Sounds like my eyes are similar to Awdbugga's. I always ski with a backpack so I've got a pair of Prizm Jades as well so I wear the Jades for bright light down to mid and the Pinks from mid light to flat, with a nice overlap in the middle. So for me the two cover everything. One of the features of Oakley lenses I've always liked is that (for me) they're 100% glare filtering so I can wear the Pink on bright days and not be squinting etc - which is great as I'm usually quite light sensitive. The benefit of the either lens though is the increased contrast they give when used in the light levels they were designed for. Waaaay back in my competitve shooting days I was sponsored by Oakley so I had a few sets of M frames with a box of all their lenses and their optical clarity was superb, especially when not necessarily looking through the centre of the lens - and that's something that's continued to this day in their goggle lenses. So yes, they're pricey but their customer service is superb and for my eyes I've yet to find better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@spyderjon, must say I have Prizm Deep Waters (as they were cheap) and a couple of colours of Chromapops, I can't really tell the difference between them and normal lenses but I find them all very pleasant to wear.
Having just resurrected my 1988 Vuarnet Skilynx, we shall see how that goes ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
I think skiing in flat light is difficult for many. I recall a particular run (Austria) where the surface, when in shade, was completely invisible. And there was a bend in it, also invisible.
"There also has to be some contrast there to be highlighted, as a lens can't manufacture some."
It's an interesting question: are these fancy coatings a con, or do they do something? I have carefully compared Oakley Prizm with a Zeiss prescription lens material of the same colour but not making any fancy skiing claims, and could not tell any difference. They all rely on snow, illuminated by cloudy (i.e. mostly blue) daylight, being different colours (not just different intensities of grey) and then by selectively suppressing some colours you improve apparent contrast. I've seen some of the patents and basically they are all comb filters implemented with coatings, but in the end IMHO it is mostly snake oil compared to a simple yellow/orange tint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
@Peter Stevens, personally, I find my chromapop lenses (both light and datk) more “comfortable” to wear than my prior very similarly tinted ones … They’re used 50-60 days in a normal year so it’s not like this is a tiny sample.
Mind you, I haven’t been bothered to test them side by side
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
