Electronic Viewfinders...health warning

[rolleiman]

I was encouraged to stick with my mechanical film cameras, following a visit to my optician for an eye check-up. He mentioned there was increasing evidence of long term eye damage; in particular from constant use of i-phone type devices. Apparently because these have small screens and are often held close to the eyes, there is serious risk from certain wavelength emissions adversely affecting the eyes.

I then asked him, "What about digital cameras with their electronic viewfinders"?....He indicated that the jury's out on that one, as they are a relatively new development, to his knowledge, medical research has not been instigated, but he would not use one.

Could it be that, rather like the smoking habit, people become aware of the dangers to health when it's too late?

 

[mauro35]

The problem with this type of studies that claim to provide "evidence" is that there needs to be well-planned funding and long term association analyses to be able to conclude that the effect is statistically significant. Meaning several years are needed to draw meaningful conclusions and they might change when the size of the studied cohort increases (see for instance this http://longevity.about.com/od/lifelongnutrition/a/overweight.htm). Is it then too late for the studies to prevent harmful effects? Well, nowadays technology moves so fast it´s almost impossible to keep the pace. I hope not, but I feel it might actually become too late.

 

[darkosaric]

I was reading that people having more and more problems with neck and spine because of unnatural positions of the head for long time - looking down on your smart phone for hours and hours on every occasion. Hard to say, time will tell, for example connection between cancer and often mobile phone usage was mentioned many times - but so far I have not seen any scientific research to confirm that.

 

[snapguy]

(cough, cough)

I spent at least 40 years in tightly enclosed darkrooms using dangerous chemicals that, these days, the EPA could fine a person $15000 a day for using them and dumping them into the sewer. And I am still alive and kicking. I take these "the sky is falling" screeds with a pinch of salt on a slice of baloney.

 

[Vonder]

I do know for certain phones are hazardous. I've always said, if you ram into me while texting, you better have a small phone - it's next trick will be mimicking a suppository.

 

[paul_c5x4]

Apparently because these have small screens and are often held close to the eyes, there is serious risk from certain wavelength emissions adversely affecting the eyes.

I would be inclined to treat this statement with a large degree of scepticism - The amount of energy of potentially damaging wavelengths of light put out by LCD backlights is minimal compared to what one would be subjected to outdoors. Much more damage will be done by protracted periods of focusing on a small screen at close distance. Even this will be less than the injuries sustained whilst wandering outdoors while engrossed in whatever it is one does with one of those iPhone things.


Put the darned thing away and pay attention to your surroundings.

 

[pdeeh]

after extensive research, it has been concluded (conclusively) that donning the appropriate safety equipment will significantly mitigate the threat posed by these devices

the simplest and most economical for the everyday user will be headgear fashioned from aluminium rolled to a thickness of approximately 0.2mm, easily available from many outlets and equally easy to cut and bend.

 

[Dr Croubie]

I was encouraged to stick with my mechanical film cameras, following a visit to my optician for an eye check-up. He mentioned there was increasing evidence of long term eye damage; in particular from constant use of i-phone type devices. Apparently because these have small screens and are often held close to the eyes, there is serious risk from certain wavelength emissions adversely affecting the eyes.

I then asked him, "What about digital cameras with their electronic viewfinders"?....He indicated that the jury's out on that one, as they are a relatively new development, to his knowledge, medical research has not been instigated, but he would not use one.

Could it be that, rather like the smoking habit, people become aware of the dangers to health when it's too late?

So iToys that have been around for 5~10 years are bad, but electronic viewfinders that have been around 20~30 years are "relatively new" so not proven?

 

[Jim Jones]

When young I could work on smaller objects than i-phones with no problems. Many decades later such work caused problems. I-phone users should investigate appropriate glasses when they reach middle-age.

 

[rolleiman]

So iToys that have been around for 5~10 years are bad, but electronic viewfinders that have been around 20~30 years are "relatively new" so not proven?

I'm referring to actual viewfinders rather than the digital viewing panel on the back of all digi cameras. The early digital SLR's of around 15 years ago had optical viewfinders. So far as I'm aware, the introduction of EVF's in SLR cameras has been a comparatively recent thing.

 

[michr]

I'm fairly certain electronic viewfinders have been around quite awhile on video cameras.

I'm skeptical about any damage caused by the emissions from these devices. What wavelengths cause this damage? Is it worse for your eyes than the small amount of UV passing through an optical viewfinder, or reflected off a book you're reading in the sun? How?

 

[removed-user-1]

I know for a fact that the video camera I operated (as a Junior in high school circa 1988), with which I taped school plays and choir performances, had an electronic monochrome viewfinder. So no, electronic viewfinders aren't really a new thing. I find this part of the claim to cast doubt on the rest. Personally, I can't stand electronic finders (I've owned a couple digital cameras with EVFs). I definitely prefer a proper optical viewfinder for either a digital or film camera.

Anyway I spend as little time as possible staring into electronic view screens of any size.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I was encouraged to stick with my mechanical film cameras, following a visit to my optician for an eye check-up. He mentioned there was increasing evidence of long term eye damage; in particular from constant use of i-phone type devices. Apparently because these have small screens and are often held close to the eyes, there is serious risk from certain wavelength emissions adversely affecting the eyes.

I then asked him, "What about digital cameras with their electronic viewfinders"?....He indicated that the jury's out on that one, as they are a relatively new development, to his knowledge, medical research has not been instigated, but he would not use one.

Could it be that, rather like the smoking habit, people become aware of the dangers to health when it's too late?

Not eye damage, but brain damage. I've watched Ithingys turn people into zombies, too.

 

[one90guy]

I spent at least 40 years in tightly enclosed darkrooms using dangerous chemicals that, these days, the EPA could fine a person $15000 a day for using them and dumping them into the sewer. And I am still alive and kicking. I take these "the sky is falling" screeds with a pinch of salt on a slice of baloney.

I agree totally, did hear film was dead:munch:

 

[benjiboy]

Life can be fatal.

 

[I.G.I.]

.... medical research has not been instigated....

If too much profits are involved I am not holding my breath about the "medical research" - research results are easily manipulated, and most of the published studies are often thinly disguised commercial propaganda. Even if proven small screens are lethal Apple/Samsung/and the likes will fund a mountain of studies to prove they are highly beneficial for, from acne and hairloss to erectile dysfunction, and to cancer and aging. Corporate monies will buy anything.

 

[Pioneer]

Yes. One needs to be very careful now days as our modern lifestyle is exceedingly bad for our health. You can read any number of articles and studies that will tell you this.

Of course, they have a bit of trouble explaining why the average life expectancy in the world is now over 70 when it was well under 50 one hundred years ago.

Obviously we still have problems that need attention but I kind of think that HIV and other problems deserve a little more attention from the medical community than this issue. Could be wrong though!

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Yes

Life can be fatal.

I've been told that life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate.

 

[Pioneer]

I've been told that life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate.

That is true but I believe they are working on a cure.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I'm skeptical about it. What makes viewing a tiny LED screen up close worse than viewing a much larger computer LED screen from 12-24" away? Besides, I'd think it would strengthen the eye muscles by forcing the viewer to use their close vision far more. It might actually help prevent or minimize or postpone presbyopia.

I agree with post #13 though... those things do turn people into zombies.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Not even a valid discussion for me, cause I can't figure out how anyone can accurately focus those silly things to begin with. Heck - even dirt cheap amateur film cameras of yesteryear had some sort of optical viewer on them. And the current fad of holding some digi pocket camera or camera-phone at arms-length, while trying to compose on a lil TV screen and on your subject at the same time???? - Can anyone think or a less ergonomic invention and more ridiculous invention in the history of photography??? Let's see... do I wear bifocals or what??? Never mind the consumer electronics industry has succeeded in convincing millions of people they need to spend money on these idiotic gadgets. Next time somebody asks me why I'm looking at an upside-down image underneath a black cloth, think I'll tell em it's because its a far more logical design than some little plastic wafer that's only good for skipping across a pond. So if someones is worried about their brain get cross-wired by those little electronic viewing screen, it was probably cross-wired by the marketing industry already anyway, when you bought the gadget to begin with!

 

[pentaxuser]

? Besides, I'd think it would strengthen the eye muscles by forcing the viewer to use their close vision far more. It might actually help prevent or minimize or postpone presbyopia.

.

Isn't the opposite true. I always thought that the Darwinian explanation was that our eyes were formed way back in the days when our long distance vision was needed for our hunting and our safety from, say, sabre-toothed tigers, bears, mammoths etc . We strain our eyes by persistent close focus which modern times and jobs demand. Our eyes haven't yet adapted to modern conditions

If we were to do no close work for say most of our lives then presbyopia might not exist. We could read without glasses at 80 years old if we had done very little reading or other close work in the preceding years.

The same kind of Darwinian theory explains why our digestive system is built to handle complex carbohydrates( that's all we could find) and not refined food and why there was very few fat cavemen so no obesity problem. In fact no real obesity problem even as little as 50-60 years ago and certainly a 100 years ago when most people expended as many calories in working to earn enough to buy food as they were consuming.


pentaxuser, first-mate on the Beagle

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Isn't the opposite true. I always thought that the Darwinian explanation was that our eyes were formed way back in the days when our long distance vision was needed for our hunting and our safety from, say, sabre-toothed tigers, bears, mammoths etc . We strain our eyes by persistent close focus which modern times and jobs demand. Our eyes haven't yet adapted to modern conditions

If we were to do no close work for say most of our lives then presbyopia might not exist. We could read without glasses at 80 years old if we had done very little reading or other close work in the preceding years.

The same kind of Darwinian theory explains why our digestive system is built to handle complex carbohydrates( that's all we could find) and not refined food and why there was very few fat cavemen so no obesity problem. In fact no real obesity problem even as little as 50-60 years ago and certainly a 100 years ago when most people expended as many calories in working to earn enough to buy food as they were consuming.


pentaxuser, first-mate on the Beagle

Nope... we use our eye muscles plenty focused at infinity all through the day. Presbyopic vision is not being able to focus on close objects. Exercising those muscles regularly does help mitigate this issue.

 

[fstop]

Its a cheap shot on all your parts who are looking for a way to degrade DSLR's. Grow up.
If you don't want to use state of the art imaging equipment that is your prerogative.
Film is good, always has been .Digital is just another medium.

As I told the nimrod who criticized my oil painting for not being water color, which she thought that painting should be, its just the medium I choose to use at this point in time.

 

[rolleiman]

Just to expand on my original post. My optician who I have known for years, is a highly qualified practitioner with many years experience, so when he tells me that medical research has indicated potentially serious eyesight problems for people who have prolonged exposure to various computer screens, I tend to believe him. Electronic viewfinders I mentioned as a possible contributory factor rather than a main cause. Photographers who use digital cameras, invariably spend hours in front of a computer screen editing their material. Possibly they use an i-phone type device as well.

It is this prolonged use of multiple devices that could cause possible problems further down the line. Anyone doubting there are hidden dangers from computers, should ask themselves why for some time (although not widely publicised) have there been available, special protective attachment screens to filter out harmful ultra-violet emissions from computer screens?

It is the comparatively recent explosion in the use of hand held devices that has apparently led to recent research, and herein lies the dilemma. Any long term damage to the eyes from overuse, will not materialise for some years into the future, when the damage will be irreversible. It's a bit like, back in the 1970's when smoking was more "fashionable". If you told someone then their habit could lead to an early death, they would laugh at you. When you are young, you are immortal. Now some of those people, now only in their 40's have serious smoking related diseases drastically shortening their lives.

Every day I go to work, I see rows of commuters on the train, hunched over their i-phones etc. How many go direct to their offices and spend the day in front of computer screens? Then on the return journey, out come the i-phones again. When they get home, out comes the home computer, or on goes the TV set. Maybe at weekends the digi camera with its electronic viewfinder puts in an appearance.!

OK, I'm exaggerating a bit to make the point, we don't yet know what the consequences will be in 10-20 years time. But do you want to take the risk? It's unlikely you'll hear about these possible dangers from the manufacturers or even the news media, there's too much money at stake.