Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 37 of 37
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    207
    Interesting thread and pretty consistent with prior threads. I agree with toast2266 and Zion zag zag. Seems like the depth perception is getting harder as the age increases and I have tried many of the recs. None of these work great which mainly a problem in early season or when it hasn’t snowed so not working the trees. Would be curious on recs from older mags that have seen the deterioration due to age.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    1,442
    Quote Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn View Post
    The ODS2 prescription insert from Smith is great, pretty reasonable price wise.


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

    There newest model ODS3 is sold out, but they have bike helmets at 50% off so it was worth the look see.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Posts
    575
    While I can't comment on the depth perception while aging aspect of it, I do find that most goggles I've tried be it MTB or snow all had pretty equivalent lens offerings. Oakley, Giro, Scott, Dragon - all have been good with nice clarity and plenty of color choices. I echo the sentiment on rose colored lenses for low light / flat light.

    I have Giros that have a lighter rose and Dragons that have a darker rose. I use whichever based on how bright it is.

    Smith is on sale a lot, and with how ubiquitous they are it's likely you'll be able to get lenses for a while and swap frames out when they get beat versus replacing everything like you may have to do with a budget goggle brand.

    Smiths at Al's
    Smiths at Evo

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    8,524
    Just go with the Cyborg eye upgrades.
    Sooner or later it's not the goggles, it's the eyes.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Wasatch
    Posts
    6,885
    Oakley high intensity yellow. But I want to try storm yellow smith. Storm rose is good for these old eyes but HI yellow is better until the sun pops out


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    I need to go to Utah.
    Utah?
    Yeah, Utah. It's wedged in between Wyoming and Nevada. You've seen pictures of it, right?

    So after 15 years we finally made it to Utah.....


    Thanks BCSAR and POWMOW Ski Patrol for rescues

    8, 17, 13, 18, 16, 18, 20, 19, 16, 24, 32, 35

    2021/2022 (13/15)

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    6,062

    Arrow Depth perception and aging

    The amount of light transmission matters a great deal...possibly even more than the specific tint.
    It's annoying that most goggle manufacturers don't tell you the transmission %.

    I've found that around 25% lets me see in flat light, but doesn't blind me when the sun gets bright.
    15% is great on sunny days, but too low for me in shadows or flat light. (I save that for spring skiing.)
    40%+ is great in shadows, but leaves me blinded in full sun, and is a bit bright even for midday flat light.

    Quote Originally Posted by GiantManta View Post
    Interesting thread and pretty consistent with prior threads. I agree with toast2266 and Zion zag zag. Seems like the depth perception is getting harder as the age increases and I have tried many of the recs. None of these work great which mainly a problem in early season or when it hasnít snowed so not working the trees. Would be curious on recs from older mags that have seen the deterioration due to age.
    You're probably getting somewhat nearsighted, as most people do when they get older and don't do focusing exercises to maintain their distance vision. As objects in the distance get blurrier, it becomes harder to resolve subtle detail in flat light.

    This deterioration often isn't something you notice day-to-day. Reading high-contrast objects like highway signs doesn't require that level of detail, and there's a lot more detail and contrast to terrain without snow on it. Snow-covered terrain in flat light is pretty much the worst case.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    21,661
    Over the decades I've tried about every lens there is and I can't say any of them make a significant difference for me. I'm 20/40 uncorrected so as Spats says maybe wearing glasses when I ski might help--until they fog, so no. Currently I use yellow and Chromapop storm, neither is better than the other.

    Skiing in flat light is less about vision and more about balance (declines with age) and the skill, strength, quickness, and endurance in the legs to deal with terrain surprises--all of which decline with age. I'm less and less inclined to go out on flat days unless the snow is soft enough and deep enough so I can fall without hurting myself. (The downside of that deep soft snow is skiing into an uphill windlip you didn't see. Very embarrassing.)

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    In rain shadow of the Sierra CC,NV
    Posts
    3,710
    Quote Originally Posted by Spats View Post
    ...and don't do focusing exercises to maintain their distance vision...
    I gotta hope not wearing glasses, skiing fast in bumps, late in the day for one more run before the lifts close, counts?


    Sent from my SM-G950U1 using TGR Forums mobile app

    ...Remember, those who think Global Warming is Fake, also think that Adam & Eve were Real...

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2020
    Location
    Idaho
    Posts
    1,442
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    Over the decades I've tried about every lens there is and I can't say any of them make a significant difference for me. I'm 20/40 uncorrected so as Spats says maybe wearing glasses when I ski might help--until they fog, so no. Currently I use yellow and Chromapop storm, neither is better than the other.

    Skiing in flat light is less about vision and more about balance (declines with age) and the skill, strength, quickness, and endurance in the legs to deal with terrain surprises--all of which decline with age. I'm less and less inclined to go out on flat days unless the snow is soft enough and deep enough so I can fall without hurting myself. (The downside of that deep soft snow is skiing into an uphill windlip you didn't see. Very embarrassing.)
    I figure if the state requires me to wear corrective lenses to drive the least I can do is wear them skiing so I have the Rx inserts from Sport Rx out of sandy eggo. Wearing glasses is out of the question. Once you get used to the clear bridge of the insert I forget they're even there. They don't fog up unless you're huffing and puffing or fall in deep powder, both avoidable. It does take some effort to clean it all up if you get snow inside the goggles though.

    While I don't think I'm immune to the aging process I've been blessed w the time and resources to counter act the process as much as possible. I know my best powder days, highest quality turns and best fitness level are ahead of me and I'm unwilling to give up w/out a fight. I've had to sacrifice my best ski years to work and family so I may have more incentive than others.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    207
    [/QUOTE] You're probably getting somewhat nearsighted, as most people do when they get older and don't do focusing exercises to maintain their distance vision. As objects in the distance get blurrier, it becomes harder to resolve subtle detail in flat light.

    This deterioration often isn't something you notice day-to-day. Reading high-contrast objects like highway signs doesn't require that level of detail, and there's a lot more detail and contrast to terrain without snow on it. Snow-covered terrain in flat light is pretty much the worst case.[/QUOTE]


    Spats - curious about this. My distance vision sucks so go to eye doctor regularly and working off a new contacts prescription. Going to have a convo with eye doc next time I’m in.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Location
    Truckee
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by plugboots View Post
    I like Smith rose and Oakley Prizm, but last season I used Julbo Aerospace w/ reactiv 1-3. I used the reactiv, (photochromatic), lens for cycling, and am sold. I kinda forget about them, they work so well.
    After a really tough visibility day where I almost killed myself hauling ass into bumps that I couldn't see, I pulled the trigger on Julbo 1-3 yesterday before skiing a very low/flat light afternoon at Squallywood.

    I couldn't be more impressed at how they work for me. I'm going to be on the mountain every week from 1-4pm. It'll start bright and move to low light when the sun drops. Photochromatic (self dimming) seems like the perfect answer. Hopefully at $290 (OTD with tax) they work out.

    The Smith storm lenses would be my next choice.

  12. #37
    Join Date
    May 2022
    Location
    Truckee
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    Over the decades I've tried about every lens there is and I can't say any of them make a significant difference for me. I'm 20/40 uncorrected so as Spats says maybe wearing glasses when I ski might help--until they fog, so no. Currently I use yellow and Chromapop storm, neither is better than the other.

    Skiing in flat light is less about vision and more about balance (declines with age) and the skill, strength, quickness, and endurance in the legs to deal with terrain surprises--all of which decline with age. I'm less and less inclined to go out on flat days unless the snow is soft enough and deep enough so I can fall without hurting myself. (The downside of that deep soft snow is skiing into an uphill windlip you didn't see. Very embarrassing.)
    Ha, I did the wind lip thing at Sugarbowl last Sunday. Caught it at the last second and checked up, but still had the dig the tips of my skis out with my poles.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •