5 ms·
Here's a list of QE numbers: http://www.sensorgen.info/ http://www.sensorgen.info/ I knew it was over 60%, and I remembered (wrong) as the G15 and G16 having t
by dr_zoidberg 10y ago
Here's a list of QE numbers: http://www.sensorgen.info/ http://www.sensorgen.info/
I knew it was over 60%, and I remembered (wrong) as the G15 and G16 having the same sensor. Welp, 77% QE for the G16 and 67% for the G15. There are others with higher QE, though in general those are used in smaller sensors.
DSLRs, while having lower QE numbers, have much larger sensors, and hence a better image quality.
- mark-r 10y agoThat's incredibly useful, thanks. The only problem is, I don't trust the numbers. How does the Nikon D2X get a QE of 476%?
- candiodari 10y agoWhat does a QE of >100% mean ? (Sony) Alpha-900 234% 3.6 892070 (Pentax) Q 101% 1.6 8429 There's a few more.
- garblegarble 10y agoAccording to Wikipedia "in the event of multiple exciton generation (MEG), quantum efficiencies of greater than 100% may be achieved since the incident photons have more than twice the band gap energy and can create two or more electron-hole pairs per incident photon." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_efficiency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_efficiency Pretty fascinating!
- amluto 10y agoIn some sense, this is useless. A sensor that counts 50% of incoming photons twice each has more shot noise than a sensor that counts each photon once.
- weinzierl 10y agoI would take this list with a grain of salt. There are several entries with a QE in the nineties (e. g. the Leice C with 95%) which seems implausible to me. Even more, further down the list are some entries way over 100% (e. g. Nikon D2X with 476%).