A new sensor design made from graphene is 1,000 times more sensitive to light than current imaging sensors found in today's cameras. It also uses 10 times less energy as it operates at lower voltages. When mass produced, graphene sensors are estimated to cost at least five times cheaper.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130530094624.htm
Comments
"We expect our innovation will have great impact not only on the consumer imaging industry, but also in satellite imaging and communication industries, as well as the mid-infrared applications,"
Maybe that explains the delay in launching the D400.....
That stuff is years away from consumer production. What caught me is the sensitivity to various light wavelengths is much higher than what could be usable for a DSLR, for now (x-ray, inferred, UV, etc.). I had never heard of graphene sensors (literally sensors - sensors for gas detection, chemicals, etc. - they are not just image sensors, but a sensor that evidently can be made to sense anything) but they are quite interesting. Not much has made it to market as of yet from what I can tell but the potential seems huge.
Low power could also mean long exposure times as well.
Also, all common sensors (CCD, CMOS) are sensitive to infra-red, UV, etc. That's why we have filters.
X-ray? If there's that much x-ray being radiated, maybe sensor sensitivity shouldn't be the main concern.
Anyway, let's see what it is able to do, instead of guessing what can't be.
The current sensors are sensitive, but if you read more on it, you will find that this new design is very sensitive well beyond photography and was designed for the non viable wavelengths intended to be captured. If you knew your history, the same issue (although not as sensitive by today's standards) were overly sensitive to non-visible light and it took many years to get to the point filters could be used without major denigration of the image.
According the the university's official press release, the new sensor design sensitivity is from visual to mid-infra red. Without seeing the data, that seems in-line with current sensors.
@Meinrad
You have a good point there, a 1000x improvement doesn't sound possible now that you've framed it that way. Something is probably lost in translation between the actual scientific paper and the Science Daily article. I'm just not about to spend $35 to download the paper to find out myself.