Electronic Viewfinders...health warning

[pentaxuser]

Did your optician cite sources for his statement and did he say how damage is defined? Is it irreparable damage to the likes of the retina and the cells of the eyes or premature wear on the lens muscles which can be corrected by glasses? How many hours in front of a screen are safe and is there a safe distance to be from the screen?

How will the damage manifest itself and in what kind of time-scale?

Thanks

 

[DWThomas]

It would be interesting to see some numbers on UV, maybe even broken down by spectral distribution. As I understand it, white LEDs are a UV LED exciting a phosphor that emits the white light, a sort of solid state fluorescent -- but how much UV gets out with the white light? Dunno. CFLs and old time fluorescent tubes do something similar, but with an electric arc facilitated by mercury vapor (speaking of hazards!) In addition there are mercury arc lamps used in industrial and street lighting. And then there's the sun -- whoa!

Also for any studies going back more than a decade or two, most video displays back then were CRTs which had x-ray hazards in addition to any UV.

Considering you can get sunburned in an hour, I might wonder if the natural UV we're exposed to would pretty much swamp out the piddling emissions from LCD backlights -- but I could be wrong (it's happened!) I have seen claims that EVF cameras are going to make DSLRs obsolete in short order, but find I prefer non-electronic viewing thus far anyway.

:munch:

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

After surviving my childhood of the 70's I don't sweat the small stuff like electronic viewfinders.

http://flashbak.com/8-reasons-children-of-the-1970s-should-all-be-dead-323/

 

[rolleiman]

Did your optician cite sources for his statement and did he say how damage is defined? Is it irreparable damage to the likes of the retina and the cells of the eyes or premature wear on the lens muscles which can be corrected by glasses? How many hours in front of a screen are safe and is there a safe distance to be from the screen?

How will the damage manifest itself and in what kind of time-scale?

Thanks

He mentioned possible irreparable damage to the cells leading to earlier than usual macular degeneration, coming through prolonged exposure of the eyes to multiple electronic screens emitting UV and blue light waves.

Because excessive use of (in particular) i-phone type devices close to the face, is a comparatively recent phenomenon the actual time scale for possible future eye damage is unknown, and will doubtless vary according to the individual degree of exposure to emissions from electronic devices.

As has been mentioned in one of the posts, There seems to be a trend of replacing optical viewfinders in cameras with electronic ones.
I (after mentioning this to my optician) would regard this development with some concern, and would take any "reassurances" from manufacturers with a large degree of scepticism.

 

[David Brown]

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.

Unfortunately, the title of this thread is: Electronic Viewfinders...health warning



Sorry, with all due respect to both you and the "highly qualified practitioner", many of us would like some prime sources for this concern. Because quite frankly, not only can I not find any, but find numerous sources that state just the opposite. You may be right. But without cites, this is just being an alarmist.

He mentioned possible irreparable damage to the cells leading to earlier than usual macular degeneration, coming through prolonged exposure of the eyes to multiple electronic screens emitting UV and blue light waves.

There is a recognized condition called computer vision syndrome (CVS). It is caused by staring at a screen for prolonged periods, but IS NOT caused by radiation or UV light. And it is not irreversible. Dr. Steven Rose states: There is no evidence that sitting at a computer screen has any effect on the development of age-related macular degeneration or any other retinal problems. That said, staring at anything for long periods of time without a break is not good for your eyes and can lead to eyestrain, which is what happens when your eyes get tired from intense use. Although eyestrain can be annoying, it usually isn’t serious and goes away once you rest your eyes.

Again, your optician may be right, but we need some sources, not just second hand hearsay. Also, just for clarification, is he an optician, and optometrist, or an ophthalmologist? There is a difference.

 

[fotch]

A friend of mine has told me "we are all going to die". He works at a funeral parlor.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

He mentioned possible irreparable damage to the cells leading to earlier than usual macular degeneration, coming through prolonged exposure of the eyes to multiple electronic screens emitting UV and blue light waves.

Because excessive use of (in particular) i-phone type devices close to the face, is a comparatively recent phenomenon the actual time scale for possible future eye damage is unknown, and will doubtless vary according to the individual degree of exposure to emissions from electronic devices.

As has been mentioned in one of the posts, There seems to be a trend of replacing optical viewfinders in cameras with electronic ones.
I (after mentioning this to my optician) would regard this development with some concern, and would take any "reassurances" from manufacturers with a large degree of scepticism.

You've given me an idea to make millions of dollars. What all LED devices need are UV-filtered covers. It doesn't matter if the UV scare is real or not... just the fear of it. I can't count how many times I've had ideas that would make me a millionaire. But I'm still as poor as a church mouse.

 

[rolleiman]

Unfortunately, the title of this thread is: Electronic Viewfinders...health warning



Sorry, with all due respect to both you and the "highly qualified practitioner", many of us would like some prime sources for this concern. Because quite frankly, not only can I not find any, but find numerous sources that state just the opposite. You may be right. But without cites, this is just being an alarmist.
(QUOTE)


Sorry if you found the title of the post misleading, but it's reasonable to conclude digital camera users spend a fair amount of time in front of their computer screens editing their work, and it is computers and the latest hand held cameraphone devices that research here in the UK has been based on. So I don't feel the title is invalid though perhaps I should have added a question mark to the title. I understand the main concerns revolve around the excess of "blue light" in the wavelength spectrum emitted from all computer screens, which can cause eventual damage to eye cells given prolonged exposure. It is certainly not just "heresay" as you seem to imply. I cannot pinpoint the exact source of the medical research, but most research of this nature in the UK is carried out by the relevant government department in association with experts in that particular field.

Apparently a new lens coating for glasses wearers helps to filter out much of this "blue light" and opticians here are recommending this for people who spend long hours in front of computers.

As already stated, we don't know yet how serious a problem this will become, given the extensive use of hand held devices close to the face in particular, is a recent phenomenon. We may not know for another 15-20 years, there is an unfortunate tendency to wait for the first casualties to occur before anyone takes any notice....just as in the smoking habit. Given that SLR's with electronic viewfinders appear to be replacing those with optical ones, I think it is reasonable to be concerned, given the close proximity of the eye to the electronic screen when using them.

 

[pentaxuser]

So is the danger proportional to the distance the eye is from the viewfinder and is it proportional to the size of the screen size of the viewfinder?

In other words can the danger to a VDU user with say a 17 inch VDU at say 24 inches be greater, equal to, lesser than the camera user with a tiny but closer viewfinder when the eye is only half inch away?

pentaxuser

 

[rolleiman]

So is the danger proportional to the distance the eye is from the viewfinder and is it proportional to the size of the screen size of the viewfinder?

In other words can the danger to a VDU user with say a 17 inch VDU at say 24 inches be greater, equal to, lesser than the camera user with a tiny but closer viewfinder when the eye is only half inch away?

pentaxuser

I afraid I don't have the answer to your questions, I'm only passing on what my optician relayed to me in general terms about possible danger to eyesight from light emissions given out by various electronic devices. I did come across similar research on the net done in South Africa that also appeared to conclude there were dangers from excessive exposure to "blue light" emitted by computer screens,

 

[pentaxuser]

OK thanks. It just seems strange that your optician has quoted no sources and not even tried to summarise the pertinent differences between general screen-viewing that we all do when using computers and that which we do with an electronic viewfinder.

If he has really found some crucial, well documented and published evidence then IMHO he needs to avoid what appears to be a kind of a throw-away line in conversation.

I may be doing him a disservice but if he is really concerned about what users may be doing to their eyes when using electronic viewfinders I'd have thought that he needs to tackle the issue less casually

Even so called experts can be as susceptible as the rest of us in inadvertently spreading alarm or making unfounded statements. Linus C Pauling, a noble prize winner was convinced that large doses of vitamin C prevented the common cold and with the best of motives he published a book on it and made a lot of money. That theory about vitamin C has largely been discredited just like the eating lots of carrots makes you see better in the dark story.

Back in the late 60's my uncle had a heart attack and was told by his doctor that in future he'd be better off drinking brandy rather than whisky. Nobody in those days questioned their doctors in the U.K. but what he was told was palpable nonsense.

pentaxuser

 

[benjiboy]

Life can be fatal, live dangerously, you may not live to be a hundred but if you worry about things like this it will certainly feel like it.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

You're so wise

Life can be fatal, live dangerously, you may not live to be a hundred but if you worry about things like this it will certainly feel like it.

In order to fully live life, we have to embrace death and the impending death of our loved ones. The ephemeral state of life makes it precious. The bucket list just becomes a list that may or may not matter if we don't do the dirt nap.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Uuuuuh.... among other things, early onset cataracts is reaching epidemic proportions due to all these digital devices. I'ts going to be way worse for the next generation, for whom these gadgets are now essentially babysitters even at preschool level, if they don't die from childhood diabetes first, from just sitting there all the time. I'll be glad when I can retire from computers in a couple of years - nothing worse for eyestrain per se. There's dying, and then there's dying slow. I hear the same excuses from smokers: "when your number is up, it's up"... yeah, but dying slow ain't exactly fun, and prematurely losing one's eyesight doesn't exactly appeal to me either. There's something also called quality of life. Migraines and blurry vision are something I just don't need. I'll let others argue the physiology or whatever. I don't care. The world just don't look right digital.

 

[pdeeh]

Doomed! Dooomed! We're all Doomed!

 

[rolleiman]

OK thanks. It just seems strange that your optician has quoted no sources and not even tried to summarise the pertinent differences between general screen-viewing that we all do when using computers and that which we do with an electronic viewfinder.
Back in the late 60's my uncle had a heart attack and was told by his doctor that in future he'd be better off drinking brandy rather than whisky. Nobody in those days questioned their doctors in the U.K. but what he was told was palpable nonsense.

pentaxuser

Understand that my opticians comments were made during a regular 30min. eye check up, there was no time to go into the details you ask for. He is someone with a lifetime of experience in the field, and when he tells me that recent research into prolonged use of multiple computer devices has highlighted a long term risk to peoples eye health particularly from emissions of "blue light", I tend to take notice. I raised the subject of digital cameras with electronic viewfinders since these would appear to fall into the same category.

A quick search on the net revealed similar research done elsewhere has resulted in the same conclusion.

Regarding your second highlighted quote. We've come a long way since the 60's, yes much of what was believed then is wrong. But if you're going to base an argument on what was believed in the past, then you might as well say that back in medieval times "bleeding" a patient was thought to be a "cure all". Obviously this is also nonsense. We have to take note of the here and now. You can either believe the research, or like some on this site, who seem to think they know better than the experts in the field, ignore it. The choice is yours.

 

[rolleiman]

Further to my last post. Look up a site on the web: "Blue light from computer screens may cause eye damage: Digital Camera". There are also a number of other sites with similar conclusions, for anyone who has doubts.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I guess I'll tape some UV filters to my reading glasses... unless someone knows of reading glasses with built-in UV protection. BTW, I haven't worn sunglasses since my mid twenties because I tend to lose small things and grew tired of replacing them.

 

[pdeeh]

My god, imagine the rapidity with which consumers of internet porn are going to go blind!

What with all that blue light and the other thing they'll be doing ...

Time to buy shares in companies which manufacture white sticks I reckon. Or start breeding labradors.

 

[Pioneer]

My god, imagine the rapidity with which consumers of internet porn are going to go blind!

What with all that blue light and the other thing they'll be doing ...

Time to buy shares in companies which manufacture white sticks I reckon. Or start breeding labradors.

Oh My Gosh!!! Mom was Right after all!!!

(Ooops, that was something else.)

 

[E. von Hoegh]

My god, imagine the rapidity with which consumers of internet porn are going to go blind!

What with all that blue light and the other thing they'll be doing ...

Time to buy shares in companies which manufacture white sticks I reckon. Or start breeding labradors.

Yeah, when you go to the eyeball doctor and they give you a puppy...

 

[DREW WILEY]

Of course we're all doomed. It's just that our forefathers were smarter, and knew all along that you need to protect yourself from the hole in the ozone layer, and hence designed cameras intelligently in the first place, meaning they included an integral sunshade. It's called a darkcloth, and is a standard accessory to any "real camera" capable of viewing the world in its true upside-down condition.

 

[fstop]

Of course we're all doomed. It's just that our forefathers were smarter, and knew all along that you need to protect yourself from the hole in the ozone layer, and hence designed cameras intelligently in the first place, meaning they included an integral sunshade. It's called a darkcloth, and is a standard accessory to any "real camera" capable of viewing the world in its true upside-down condition.

I hear ya... but my "real camera" has a digital back on it.

Which is what the OP really objects to.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The trouble with most digital cameras is that you have to stand on your head to properly compose anything. I ran into some idiot at the top of one of our hills last weekend, trying to find his way around, but holding his idiotic GPS device upside down. He asked me how to get back to the NP "visitor center". I walked him over to a park sign with a distinct arrow on it, pointing out the correct trail and mileage of 2.2 miles. But he argued that he had just come up that trail, and that his GPS pointed the opposite direction. I replied, that if he had just come up it from where he wants to get back, then going back down it would be the most logical choice. He keeps insisting that his GPS is correct and that I'm wrong. I tell him that if he goes the opposite way, he'll end up clear at the bottom of the mountain at the beach, and that it will be at least a twelve mile walk back. Finally thought he understood that. But then I ducked behind a tree for a pee, and when I came back to the trail he had already wandered off down the wrong trail, staring at that GPS the whole time. Amazing how much brains it takes to design technology sold to people without any brains of their own.

 

[rolleiman]

Amazing how much brains it takes to design technology sold to people without any brains of their own.

Indeed. Judging by some of the sarcastic comments on this string, many of those folk minus brains of their own inhabit this site.