Digic 5 is announced

[neuroanatomist]

You may have seen Bryan's news post about the new PowerShot S100 and SX40 HS announced today. Of significance is the fact that those PowerShot models will debut the new Digic 5 processor, replacing the Digic 4 first seen in the 50D.


Canon claims that, "DIGIC 5 analyses four times more image information to create each pixel, recording more detail and colour from a scene than ever before. Processing speed is also six times faster compared to the previous processor." That has interesting implications for future dSLR releases, both in terms of potential increased dynamic range and increased frame rates.


The S100 itself also seems quite nice. Canon replaced the Sony-manufactured 10 MP CCD sensor with an in-house produced 12 MP CMOS sensor (same sensor size - 1/1.7"). Presumably the primary reason was to support the latest video 'fad' (1080p @ 24 fps) - but it will likely be less noisy, as well. Plus, the faster CMOS sensor combined Digic 5 now support a 2.3 fps continuous shooting mode, an impressive 2.5-fold increase from the 0.9 fps of the S95. The lens is also new - now a 24-120mm FF-equivalent zoom (vs. the previous 28-105mm), but still f/2 at the wide end. The S100 also features a built-in GPS with image tagging and logging.


All in all, some very nice improvments from the S95. So nice that those improvements, combined with the fact that when my wife shoots with the S95, she comments on how much better it is than her Olympus P&S (can we say, hand-me-down?), inspired me to pre-order the S100 from Amazon. For anyone else so inclined, here's the link.


Looking forward to some dSLR announcements featuring the new Digic 5!!

[andnowimbroke]

I

[andnowimbroke]

I think I misread it. Never mind. Unless Canon is reading, then 1.2 high precision AF point all the way. Do they usually put out a P&S with the newer chip before the SLR version, or is this due to manufacturing problems from the storm and they pushed these out first rather than wait?

[neuroanatomist]

First time for a Digic intro in a PowerShot. The original Digic was introduced in the D30 (predating the 1-series). Digic 2 and 3 debuted in 1-series bodies, and Digic 4 in the 50D.


Regarding timing, I

[DavidEccleston]

75% less noise than Digic 4 at all ISOs!

[Daniel Browning]

Canon

[andnowimbroke]

75% less noise puts it right with a base Nikon.. from last year My camera stuff won

[Raid]

I was under the impression that a CCD was inherently less noisy than a CMOS sensor, in an apples for apples comparison. As I understand it, the reason to use CMOS was cost and power consumption. The reason why Nikon has better ISO noise performance is their use of a CCD but they also have much shorter battery life.


Is the 75% noise reduction a function of the noise generated by the chip (which would be very good) or is it noise reduction algorithms (which is not so good since this reduces image quality).


Happy to be corrected.

[Daniel Browning]

I was under the impression that a CCD was inherently less noisy than a CMOS sensor, in an apples for apples comparison.

It depends on what you mean by an apples-to-apples comparison. If you mean a completely biased, nonsensical comparison rigged by CCD manufacturers to make their product seem superior, then yes, CCD is less noisy. But if you mean any real life comparison made within the last decade, then no, CCD is not inherently less noisy. Once microlenses became prevalent, the playing field evened out.

As I understand it, the reason to use CMOS was cost and power consumption.

It's not cost. The theory behind CMOS being cheaper is that they require less semiconductor customizations than CCD for manufacturing and can ride the coattails of the much larger computer manufacturing lines. But in reality, the only company to ever actual attempt it failed terribly. It turns out that CMOS image sensors require just as much customization as CCD.


The difference in power consumption is so incredibly minute that it can only matter to the ultra-tiny mobile phones with teeny, tiny LCD screens. In anything bigger, like a smartphone or a digicam, the LCD and other components take up so much more battery power that the difference is entirely inconsequential.

The reason why Nikon has better ISO noise performance is their use of a CCD

First of all, the last time Nikon came out with a CCD-based DSLR was 7 YEARS ago, in 2004. Everything since has been CMOS. Furthermore, Canon's CMOS sensors of the time wiped the floor with Nikon's CCD. The noise was so much lower in Canon's CMOS that it wasn't even funny.


Of course, now the tables have turned, and Nikon's CMOS sensors (mostly made by Sony) are noticeably better than Canon's CMOS sensors.

Is the 75% noise reduction a function of the noise generated by the chip (which would be very good) or is it noise reduction algorithms (which is not so good since this reduces image quality).

It's certainly not the chip. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's noise reduction algorithms, either. It could just be a better de-Bayer algorithm, that provides the same detail with less noise.

[andnowimbroke]

I think the first EOS was the only CCD Canon made. After that, it was all CMOS. It