Olympus head engineer: the best material for a camera body

No contaminated CHINESE plastic here.

http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/special/passion/episode8_01.html

"It's the body's job to enclose and protect the cutting-edge
mechanisms and indeed the potential of the Olympus digital SLR
flagship. After countless tests and lengthy deliberation we finally
arrived at the consensus that, due to its unparalleled durability,
magnesium was the best material to use. Offering a solid feel and
enabling highly airtight design for outstanding dust and splash
resistance under severe environmental conditions, it was the most
suitable material for the task."

 

Oh get off it.

1) The "quote" does not disparage plastic at all, just touts metal as
their favoured material for high end cameras like the E series.

2) Oly still use plastic in most of their bodies. And like everyone
else they have metal bodies for the high end.

3) I have 4 cameras:
1 milled aluminum
1 cast magnesium
1 mainly cast magnesium with some polycarbonate panels
1 100% molded polycarb.

None are damaged despite long non-gentle use. All take great images.

The whole linked "article" is very typical of the ads camera cos. put
out to influence buyers as to the "durability/strength" of their
products. The classic tag line in there was: "Offering a solid feel..."

Rich: Get a camera and start making photographs. As it will "Offer you
a solid feel" get a metal one.

 

I've a load of cameras, plastic and metal.
All of them are fine.

As my plastic cameras have survived, what do you think I should do to
shorten their life??

 

Which metal bodies are those? The ONLY DSLR that had one (a great
one) was the E-1. It left production a year ago.
Yes, Olympus did go on a cost-cutting binge and it has brought them
into the black now, thanks to the worthless taste and brains of the
average buyer, who value 18x zooms and high pixel counts (even though
the morons will never print beyond 4x6") and portability over qualilty
of image produced. But only a fool would argue their new cameras are
even a patch on the older ones, and I'm talking about the P&S
cameras. The bodies on the current crop of their DSLR are merely
acceptable for general use and they are all "entry level" at best.
They have no prosumer and no pro bodies.

 

I don't know about their life, but how about the photogs? Do your
hands ever sweat when handling those cameras?


CALIFORNIA
Legislature considers bill to ban chemical from kids' products
Bisphenol A found in pacifiers, toys and baby bottles

Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer

Thursday, March 31, 2005

An obscure chemical in hard plastic baby bottles, liners inside canned
food and some water containers lies at the center of controversy as
the California Legislature considers a bill to ban it in children's
products.

If passed, California would be the first state to limit its use.

Bisphenol A -- the prime chemical in making the polycarbonate plastic
popular in durable, clear Nalgene water bottles -- has come under
increasing scrutiny in recent years from scientists who caution that
it's found in thousands of consumer products and has invaded the human
body.

Industry representatives say the chemical in the products remains at
insignificant concentrations, and they maintain that nationwide tests
compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that
the bisphenol A levels in people aren't worrisome. The Food and Drug
Administration permits its use.

But researchers have found that at doses below or at a federal safety
guideline, the chemical can disrupt hormone systems of lab animals,
affecting the workings of their brains.

Bisphenol A has been used for decades in the manufacture of tough
plastics known as polycarbonate plastics. The plastics make up a wide
variety of products, primarily food and drink packaging and containers
such as hard, clear and sometimes tinted Nalgene water bottles, and in
toys, pacifiers, baby bottles and teethers.

The chemical is also used in epoxy resins that coat food cans, bottle
tops and water supply pipes, and as sealants for children's teeth for
the prevention of cavities.

Assemblywoman Wilma Chan, D-Oakland, became aware of the chemical's
possible hazards through her work on the Select Committee on
Children's Health and School Readiness and introduced a bill last
month that would prohibit the manufacture or sale of any product
intended for use by a child 3 years of age or younger, if it contains
bisphenol A.

The bill, AB319, also would ban in toys and child care articles
certain forms of phthalates, plastic softeners.

The committee, which she heads, has turned up a number of studies
showing that bisphenol A and some phthalates can cause hormone and
nerve damage in young children, she said.

Chan, whose legislation led to the banning of two forms of flame
retardant two years ago, said she was "shocked to find out that there
were chemicals in toys that babies put in their mouths and in baby
bottles.''

"We just shouldn't have these products on the market in California,''
Chan said.

According to 1999 industry data, about 2 billion pounds of bisphenol A
are produced yearly in the United States. In the last 10 years,
criticism has grown with studies showing that bisphenol A can leach
from products under high heat and alkaline conditions, and the rate of
leaching is affected by the age, condition and wear of the products.

Nalge Nunc International, which makes Nalgene bottles, didn't return
calls.

The American Plastics Council, which represents companies that use
bisphenol A, maintains that the amount of leaching isn't significant.
The group opposes the Chan bill.

"The bill is written fairly broadly,'' said spokesman Steve Hentges. A
ban on bisphenol A could potentially eliminate the coating used to
line cans to prevent metal from corroding into foods. "You can't make
polycarbonate without it.''

At this point, Chan said, her bill doesn't attempt to regulate the
bisphenol A in food cans.

As for the health effects, Hentges said, "The evidence has been
examined by governments and scientific bodies worldwide. In every
case, the weight of evidence supports the conclusion that bisphenol A
is not a risk to human health at the extremely low levels to which
people might be exposed.''

But an author of one of the new studies, Thomas Zoeller, a thyroid
endocrinologist and chairman of the University of Massachusetts'
biology department, said researchers had shown that humans were widely
exposed to bisphenol A, a chemical that can disrupt animal hormone
systems that affect the workings of the brain.

Further, it appears to accumulate at higher concentrations around the
fetus -- in the umbilical cord and the amniotic fluid -- than in the
mother's blood, said Zoeller, a leading authority on fetal thyroid
development. While it's not clear what the affects are on humans,
Zoeller and his colleagues published a study in the journal
Endocrinology in February showing that, in lab animals, bisphenol A
altered the ability of thyroid hormone to correctly regulate brain
development.

In another study, expected in an upcoming issue of the journal
Neuroscience, a University of Tokyo group found that bisphenol A
inhibited the positive role of estrogen in enhancing neural
connections in a part of the brain involved in the formation and
retention of memory, the hippocampus.

And a study by researchers from Yale University School of Medicine and
Helen Hayes Hospital, affiliated with Columbia University Medical
School, also found negative effects on the hippocampus. The study was
published in February by Environmental Health Perspectives, the
journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

Scientists recognize that an increased rate of synapse formation may
benefit memory, and the hormone estrogen in both the female and male
brain is important in terms of increasing the density of synapses.

Yet, when the Yale and Helen Hayes researchers injected extremely low
doses of bisphenol A in rats, "the positive effect of the estrogen was
strongly inhibited because there were fewer synapses,'' said Neil J.
MacLusky, a developmental neuroendocrinologist at the hospital's
Center for Neural Recovery and Rehabilitation Research.

"We don't know that it necessarily means anything for human beings,''
he said. "But if these kinds of biological effects occur in humans, it
raises serious issues.''

 

Do you have ANY evidence to support this outlandish claim that sweat
can leach BPA plastic and that BPA can be absorbed through the skin?
And do you have any evidence that shows this exposure is a health
concern?

Didn't think so....

There's a scene in the movie _The Paper_ where someone complains about
Robert Duvall smoking and says something about 'doctor found nicotine
in my urine again'. Robert Duvall's response is a classic....

IOW, don't let children chew on your camera.

BTW, the California Legislature is STILL considering this bill.

 

There's a new soap coming out with caffeine in it. Do you suppose
things can be absorbed into the skin without having to be ingested
directly? Like nicotine patches, for e.g.?

 

Typical Rander avoidance technique - change the subject whenever
called to task.

Caffeinated soap is not new, and it is nothing more than soap with
caffeine added. And all the caffeine does is give a reason for people
to pay too much for ... a bar of soap.

Not like a nicotine patch at all, doofus. You'd know this if you had
even a smattering of exposure to pharmacokinetics or you resisted the
urge to just make up stuff hoping it sounds good enough for people to
believe.

Nicotine is fat soluble and readily absorbed through the skin.
Caffeine is water soluble, and it is not readily absorbed through the
skin.

Go adjust your tinfoil beanie (remember, the shiny side out). Buy a
camera and go take some pictures.


TR

 

Tell them.


Wake up, smell the coffee - or is it the soap?

* Steven Morris
* The Guardian
* Friday April 20 2007

Help may be at hand for the sort of person who is in such a rush that
they don't have time both to shower and drink a cappuccino - a
caffeinated bar of soap.

The manufacturers claim that as a person lathers him or herself with
the Shower Shock soap it releases caffeine that is absorbed into the
user's system and provides the same hit as a couple of cups of coffee.

Happily the soap is also infused with peppermint and citrus scents so
you don't end up smelling like a jar of coffee beans . A shower gel is
also on offer, although the makers, Think Geek, warn that neither is
recommended for pregnant women or children because of the caffeine
content.

Jennifer Kuropkat, of Think Geek, said both products were aimed at
people who just did not have time to get the coffee on and get washed.
In America, where it was invented, it is being sold under the
advertising strapline: "Have smelly co-workers that sleep in too much?
Give them the gift of Shower Shock."

Ms Kuropkat said: "We love caffeinated products and our designers came
up with the idea to combine it with a soap. Every full body wash with
the Shower Shock soap will provide the equivalent of around two cups
worth of coffee.

"The caffeine is absorbed through the skin and into the bloodstream.
It has exactly the same effect as if you were drinking coffee. Your
blood pressure and pulse rate will increase, making your brain feel
more alert and awake.

"The caffeine will then last in your system for approximately four
hours - the same as two cups of coffee. They really are time-saves as
you don't have to wait around for your coffee to brew in the morning."

The 4oz bars of soap, available via the internet, cost £3.50, and
there is also a smaller travel version. The Mountain Dew shower gel
costs £6.50.

 

[press release for ThinkGeek snipped]

No matter what the fine folks at ThinkGeek say about their product, it
is NOT a vehicle for caffeine. And saying so in a press release
doesn't make it true.

All of the effects they reported (increased blood pressure and pulse
rate, feeling alert and awake, etc) can all be attributed to taking a
shower and oil of peppermint and citrus.

Go adjust your tinfoil beanie (remember, the shiny side out). Buy a
camera and go take some pictures. And quit making stuff up.


TR

 

Oh geez! Subject header changing. The next step, internet stalking.
I've seen it before.

 

You're pretty gullible if you believe this, and are engaging in
your usual trollish behavior if you don't. Try to work it out,
based on estimates of the number of washes the 4oz bars should be
good for, the amount of caffeine that could be added to the soap
without changing it into a product that doesn't resemble soap, and
the estimated percent of the caffeine that doesn't get washed down
the drain, assuming that you aren't so foolish as to believe that
100% of the caffeine is absorbed into the body. Coffee has about
80mg of caffeine per cup, btw. My bets are on trollish behavior.

 

Forget the coffee, it was a tangent and doesn't matter. As usual, a
thread can't go two posts without some baby getting their feelings
hurt because an engineer stated the best material for a camera isn't
what the little baby's camera happened to be made of. Plastic,
polycarbonate is a great material for a camera body...except for all
the other choices.

 

There was a mention in yesterday's news about a new bridge design
that replaces steel with plastic. It was estimated to increase
bridge longevity by about 50 years. A good part of this is
supposedly due to the steel deteriorating rapidly when its
protective concrete coating is breached, exposing it to the
elements. You probably won't really be happy until transparent
metals are discovered that can be used for lenses. You do realize
that glass is plastic, constantly flowing, so that if you leave a
camera undisturbed long enough, the bottoms of lens elements will be
thicker than the tops!

 

Man, oh, man. I sure hope you don't have such a runaway mouth when
you're speaking to people in person. What a series, "fool," "moron,"
"worthless taste and brains," and on about people who don't do as you
think they should do.

In my old neighborhood, someone would dropkick your ass over a
chipmunk and count the effort wasted.

 

It's not that. Rander is getting worn down from all the campaigning,
each and every day aiming for the top, month after month, Asshole of
the Week. The wear and tear now has him thinking he's important enough
to stalk, or to otherwise take seriously.

 

So if we accept your assertion that we accept the head engineer at
Olympus as being credible, what this also must mean is that *all*
materials that Olympus chooses to put in their cameras have been
approved by this gentleman.

In other words, for whatever material selection that Olympus makes in
its camera product lines, then there's some credible reason why *the
guy RichA selected as authoritative* chose it as the best engineering
solution for that product.

And directly to the point, this means that if Olympus uses any
plastic, it must be okay by this guy ... who RichA has selected as
credible!

So....has Olympus used any plastic in their cameras?

A....Yup.

Thus, Olympus's head engineer approved their use.


And henceforth, let it be known throughout the realm that RichA,
through the use of a subject matter expert *of his own choosing*, has
utterly discredited his own anti-plastic arguement.


-hh

 

Why? Does he determine the engineer specifics for even the cheap
(made by Sanyo) P&S cameras?
Also, you missed the term, "best material." As in magnesium is the
best.
Acceptable might be polycarbonate.
Barely usable might be polystyrene.

 

He can get away with it because he's a person of superior taste and vast
wisdom. Just ask him, he'll confirm what I said.
Dave Cohen

 

I try to stay out of the slums.