Hang back on that digital camera purchase

Yeah, I read about this a couple of days ago. I think it holds promise, but I'm not holding my breath to see how fast it gets to digital cameras, if ever. First it has to be proven OK for consumer digital camera use, then shown to be sufficiently better than what we have now for camera makers to make the change, and all that assuming it really is that much better, and not so much more expensive after all.
 
Quantum dots- is that what they call those spots you're left seeing after you've looked straight into your Quantum flash?
 
If it works as advertised, it could mean point-and-shoot cameras that don't look like garbage at ISO 400. Or a micro 4/3 camera that was better than a D700 at high ISO.

Mind, I say IF. There's still a lot of questions, such as how it integrates with existing methods of doing color, production costs, and other gotchas. Remember Foveon?
 
You can't take photographs with a press release (unless, of course, you coat it in a phososensitive emulsion). And so far, a press release is all we've seen.
 
Quantum dots are indeed a mayor break through in recent science and embedding them into a polymer to make a light-sensitive semiconductor is quite an interesting idea. IF it turns out that the polymer film is stable and S/N ratio and also dynamic range are sufficient, the new polymer has the potential to replace the actual CCD/CMOS sensors.
 
maddoc said:
Quantum dots are indeed a mayor break through in recent science and embedding them into a polymer to make a light-sensitive semiconductor is quite an interesting idea. IF it turns out that the polymer film is stable and S/N ratio and also dynamic range are sufficient, the new polymer has the potential to replace the actual CCD/CMOS sensors.
Click to expand...



Yay! ... someone who's mind is open and ready to receive improvements in digital image capture! :)
 
You do need to take such pronouncements with a grain of salt until you know more about their state of development.

Think about all the media headline announcements on the 6. o'clock news about cancer cures etc that, when you make further inquiries turn out to mean that someone has tested a new compound in vitro and it has killed some cancer cells in a laboratory setting and a real treatment (if it works at all in live humans without killing thme too ) is still 10 years off.

In IT circles it's often called vapourware. And its great for the developers involved. Gives them a public profile and maybe it allows them to attact money from investors to actually bring their product to fruition. or to sell it an retire to the Barbados.

But I must admit I would like to know more as I have long thought that the next round of development will be in sensor technology as we really only have - what three realsitic competitors - CCD, CMOS and Foveon (?) at the moment.
 
Bla bla bla... Nothing will ever improve... bla bla... still not as good as my wet plates... bla bla bla... I'd rather be out shooting REAL pictures than reading press releasees... bla bla bla... new technology will not make you a better photographer... bla bla... film bla bla... this is not what REAL photography is supposed to be about... bla bla... HCB got along well without it... :rolleyes:

This rant was inspired by many more threads than this one. What is it that makes people so angry about discussing future ***possible*** improvements? If you are happy with what you got, fine. I like progress. I like new things that are good and I also like analog technology and old stuff that's good.

Sorry for the rave...
 
Lots of noise, like the FOVEON need to see it to believe it

It gathers more light so you can either make a smaller image sensor for a less expensive cell phone camera, or you make a higher resolution sensor for high-end digital cameras," Marshall said. "It's a huge step forward and the market is also huge, so they will also need to overcome the problems facing any small company when trying to penetrate a large market."


kuzano said:
The replacement for CMOS technology is almost upon us:

http://www.eetimes.com/news/design/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224000253

Pass this on to Leica for the pending M10.
Click to expand...
 
We do seem to have some fundamentalists here.

OF COURSE there will be improvements, probably faster than we expect. Equally clearly, if we always wait for the next improvement, we'd still be using wet plates. Dry plates? Nah, I'll wait for ortho film. Or pan. Or colour. Or TTL metering. Or autofocus. Or digital. Or more megapixels. Or higher ISO with less noise. Or...

And OF COURSE there is vapourware.

If you already have what suits you, stick with it.

If you don't have what suits you, and can find what you want on the market, and can afford it, buy it.

But holding back on a purchase on the strength of a preliminary report of a promising-sounding technology seems to me a bit odd.

Cheers,

R.
 
If they are targeting Cell Phone cameras, then they can only make it on a very small form factor. They probably have uniformity problems when scaling to larger detector geometries. As long as you do not mind a 20x crop factor with your lenses, you can hold off buying that M9.

That's what I get when reading in between the lines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom