Reply,
I seriously doubt that either you or I is in a position to assess the potential of such technologies; if researchers at Standford University say that it has potential, and the technology has already been put into commerical use, I see little reason to worry just because you are cynical!
but I have no idea where you get your 40MHz from. 4x faster than 1/100th of a second is 400Hz, not 40MHz, so you are off by far more than my one zero!. I repeat that the testing of photosites only needs to be done at a veryeasily attainable frequency of about 10,000 times per second or less.
By the way, the version that I have heard of does a local analog to digital conversion on the chip at each site, applies an adjustment for the different exposure time at different sites to that digital value while still "on site" (probably just a bit shift for each factor of two difference in exposure time), so that the final data read off the sensor after the exposure is finished is already digital, and so immune to any further noise sources.
As to your absurd taunt about 4/3 format, I should not stoop to this nonsensical DPReview forums style rhetoric of "my brand currently sells better than your brand, therefore it and/or its format size are inherently and permanently superior".
Alright, I will stoop a bit, just for fun.
a) The size difference between 4/3 and say Canon's 1.6x is so small that the broad factors I am discussing have so little effect; they are probably drowned by other variations between product lines: it is about 10% to 20% linear, 20% to 40% in area, or less than a half stop.
The jumps in format size that are big enough to have a clear cut effect are ones between levels like
- digicam, up to 2/3"
- the new DSLR formats as a whole, everything from 4/3 to DX
- 35mm
- 645
A huge array of other factors are in play when comparing Olympus to other DSLR makers, most obviously that back in the 35m film SLR era, Olympus had become a far smaller player than Canon and Nikon, or even Pentax and Minolta, with no established auto-focus lens system and a tiny SLR user base.
c) A far more interesting comparison is to Pentax and Konica-Minolta, who were closer to the size of Olympus in the 35mm film SLR market than were Canon and Nikon, though still substantially bigger. The Olympus E system is reportedly easily outselling both Pentax and Konica-Minolta DSLRs combined, and also outselling both Fuji and Kodak DSLRs, and possibly about matching or surpassing all those brands combined for unit sales volume.
So in fact, the E system has overtaken a number of competitors including several bigger companies who were in the DSLR market earlier.
d) As far as I can tell, Olympus E system models also easily outsell Canon's 35mm format models, in both unit volume and revenues. (Perhaps you will complain that this is due to huge price differences; but once you raise current sales volume as an argument, price is a legitimate factor in comparing the viability and prospects of different formats.)
The figures I have read in official statements from Olympus and Canon are shipments of about 40,000 units per month for the E system in the early months of 2005, versus a reported production level of 2,000 units per month, first for the original 1Ds and then for the 1Ds Mark II.
From other sales figures, 4/3 probably outsells all digital offerings in all formats 35mm and larger.
e) If instead you compare Canon's own sales in different formats, or 35mm DSLR as a whole to smaller format DSLR sales as a whole, then by your flawed reasoning, the glaring conclusion would be that it is 35mm format has totally failed to "overtake anyone" in the DSLR market place, despite the backing of the industry leader Canon. Instead 35mm DSLRs are stuck with a very small and shrinking share of total DSLR sales and revenues. As far as I can tell, 35mm format digital even has a smaller total sales volume than medium format had in the era of film.