What I meant was...that your glasses correct the image, but the correction for
astigmatism gets to be a very loose approximation as the astigmatism increases,
compared to the perfection of an expensive optical system.
But I realize:
1) unless I make some premimum eyepiece-correction product, you can't do anything
about that, so eyeglass friendliness remains critical to you
(maybe someone should, though...you're laser fitted and the stick-ons are ground)
2) Areas like glare and contrast are still plenty important.
So....for all practical purpose, I realize eyeglass friendliness counts,
(since I can't quit my job and start cnc-grinding these ideal widgets)
but I am left maintaining that if I had bad astigmatism, there couldn't be much
difference in sharpness from $200 to $2000...
When I do my own rating, I evaluate sharpness and contrast depth seperately,
since they are two parts of clarity and beyond. The 'noise' messes with both
your seeing of sharpness and seeing of subtle shades and shapes, but it also
depends on lighting conditions.
Anyway, I jumped on the eyeglass hastily. I just thought one for all of image quality
left a lot of key information out. I value contrast depth and lack of haze/glare almost
higher than plain sharpness....it's kind of washed out in their system. Comparing LCD
TV screens with today's LED screens or looking at that annoying haze in high
megapixel cameras drives the point home. Or..a sharp but hazy pair of 8x21s with
some sun-splash. The lines are there but the details and colors are faded.