I am a video amateur and have recently bought a Canon 600D, mostly for shooting. I have some photography background and the image quality of the 600D is far better than my old 350D, no problem with that. But the video quality is simply horrible. I am not able to describe problems, but I saw smartphones with better video quality... It looks very bad, and the effect is more visible with low lights.

Here is two frames from my last shot :

Without mentioning the bad focusing and too high iso, anybody can provides some clues ?

2 Answers 2


Should be mentioned that the 600D isn't exactly the best DSLR for video out there. The artifacts that you are experiencing in your footage are the result of high compression. Check your video settings if you can increase the bitrate or choose a different codec other than h.264/AVC if Canon offers one by now for their DSLRs.

This thread might be interesting to read: http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/280/8433

Also a possibility would be to install Magic Lantern on your camera. This enables HDMI output which you could capture (will have a LOT better quality than h.264 encoded footage) and you should have more options about the video codec. On the Canon 5D Mark II they even enabled raw video capture to the CF card but I'm not sure if this is available for other models yet. Though apparently you loose audio capture at the moment, which might be neglect-able as the audio capture on DSLRs is usually pretty bad. If you capture with HDMI then you can use an HDMI audio injector which aren't expensive so you don't end up with a separate audio and video file that you have to synchronize.


Ok, I've found the problem. I have tested with another lens (Sigma DG 70-300 f/4 - 5.6 Macro), and the result is much much better than with default lens. But I am not able to explain this.

  • Ah, you were using a kit lens. That makes perfect sense. Kit lenses are not known for their sharpness or clarity. There is a reason it is a cheap lens that comes effectively free with your camera. The reason it can be "better" on a smartphone is that the sensor is smaller and thus the optics don't have to gather as much light and are far simpler.
    – AJ Henderson
    Commented Jul 14, 2014 at 23:06
  • The Sigma DG is not a cheap lens too ? Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 7:21
  • And, by the way, do you know good and affordable wide angle lens ? Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 12:18
  • 1
    It is still relatively cheap, but it's also a third party. Generally speaking, for the price, third party lenses tend to provide better optical quality until you get in to the really high end, at which point there simply often isn't a third party lens that meets the quality of the name brand. A $150 Sigma is probably most comparable to a $300-$450 Canon lens.
    – AJ Henderson
    Commented Jul 15, 2014 at 13:25

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.