> I mean that something else will limit the capability of the sensor before the quantum efficiency of the silicon. Sorry. Again, no. Not a single well desig

> I mean that something else will limit the capability of the sensor before the quantum efficiency of the silicon. Sorry. Again, no. Not a single well designed camera will do this. Quantum efficiency is, to use a term from a time gone by, the "emulsion". Now, if you are talking about a $15 security camera or some garbage design, sure, whatever, anything is possible. I have been involved in the design of cameras for terrestrial, orbital and lunar applications. You don't throw anything away unless you absolutely have to. QE is the "fingerprint" of the sensor, it si based on the material used to make it and it all follows from there. Put a different way, it's how a sensor converts photons landing on a pixel into electrons. You can't degrade or enhance this externally. If less photons land on the pixel (bad optics, ND filters, etc.) the QE is the same. If more photons hit the pixel (back illumination, better optics, etc.) the QE is the same. If you have shitty digital processing, the QE is the same. Etc. Going back to statement that "Digital sensors these days are way better at capturing light", still not sure what it means. For example, a better way to capture light is back illumination, which has been around for many decades. Interested in learning if there's something in modern sensors (in production) I might not know about. I have a database of nearly every imaging sensor in production up to about a year go. It covers the SWIR to visible range. Every sensor you can buy. If there are any advancements that cause a sensor to be "way better at capturing light", I would sure love to know about it.