"Organic" equals "carbon-based". Oil is organic in that sense, as is plastic. Plants and animals are likewise carbon-based.
Its not really an organic sensor exactly, its a thin photoelectric film placed on the chip surface which acts as the photo-electric conversion layer instead of the chip surface itself (which is normally in a well surrounded by the circuitry mounted on the silicon surface and thus not as receptive to incoming light, especially at an angle).
The carbon-based material in question will not be alive and hence will not die. Diamonds are carbon-based. They don't deteriorate over time.
There are well over 10 million organic compounds out there. Photo-degradation is normally associated only with long chain polymers, but only matters in the case of continuous exposure to UVB radiation.
Certainly not a dumb question. I had the same question a couple weeks ago when I read a posting by someone that mentioned the organic sensor. I spent several hours plowing through articles to figure out what it was. Others in your thread have provided the answer. There are some very technical explanations out there if you enjoy reading physics books, not me, I just wanted a simple explanation.
That one linked in the thread could even be the solution for the wide open lens problem:
Organic in technical terms simply means based on covalent molecular carbon compounds. That definition existed long before marketing campaigns got hold of the idea that "organic" meant "natural" or "healthy".
That is why I referred to common usage of the word not too many people are into 'covalent molecular carbon compounds' ;-)
It comes with a free Lomo mode… you just have to wait a couple of years to receive it.
That's interesting. But doesn't receptiveness to wide angles mean the sensor would give its best benefit on a larger sensor. Something re Fuji that has been discussed ad nauseum and they have denied.
Not really. The component circuitry uses up a smaller proportion of sensor area with larger pixels. It has more benefit for smaller photosites. It will help, but not as much as it would for phone cameras.
It would have less benefit as sensor size increased. I suspect the primary purpose of the research was phone cameras and medical imaging, which use very small sensors with lots of pixels.
If the correct term has been usurped by marketing trolls, why should the whole scientific community change it's terminology?
With respect we are not talking about the preferences of the 'whole scientific community' , we are talking about effective communication with ordinary consumers. The Scientific community are well known for poor communication skills, instead they tend to boost their own egos with a heavy use of obscure scientific terms & jargon.
With respect, you just mortally offended me ;-)With respect we are not talking about the preferences of the 'whole scientific community' , we are talking about effective communication with ordinary consumers. The Scientific community are well known for poor communication skills, instead they tend to boost their own egos with a heavy use of obscure scientific terms & jargon.
