# G7X Mark 3 turn on grid and level?



## mestes1999 (Aug 6, 2019)

I just upgraded from the G7X mark 2 to the mark 3. I really like the grid and electronic level turned on, but I can't figure out how to turn it on on the Mark 3. On the older one you just hit the down button on the menu ring. 

Also the fact that there are no manuals online for the Mark 3 yet doesn't help.

Anyone have a Mark 3 yet who can answer this?


----------



## iamjhil (Aug 6, 2019)

Just picked mine up. Kinda scared about all this talk about crap auto focus....

Anyways. Menu 4 (the wrench) Goto shooting info display. You can add the Grid


----------



## stevelee (Aug 6, 2019)

I have the G7X II and am seriously considering upgrading to the III, or since it has been downsized, the G5X II. I don't know whether I'd use the viewfinder enough to make that a factor, and the extra zoom might be nice, but not enough to determine my purchase unless tests show it superior to the older lens.

So I'd be interested in any reactions you have to the III from the standpoint of a user of a II. Do you miss anything on the III that you were used to, other than not figuring out the grid and level? I might want to buy the camera before a trip in October. But I might wait until next year before I shoot some video in June, if it turns out that video is the only improvement that I'd really benefit from.

I am really happy with the pictures I get from the II. I'm disappointed that the manual is not ready. I will peruse it before making any buying decisions. I would want to hold the new 5 in my hands and look through the viewfinder before I decide which and whether.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 6, 2019)

iamjhil said:


> Just picked mine up. Kinda scared about all this talk about crap auto focus....



Is there reason to believe that the autofocus is worse on the III than on the II? I know it's a new sensor to Canon. Could we figure that the autofocus ought to be about as good as it was on the Sony models that used that sensor? Are there any Dr. Tongue 3D horror videos that show the autofocus problems of the Sony?

I've never had any focus problems with the II, at least none I could blame on the camera. The laws of optics are such that depth of field and hyperlocal distances at these short focal lengths make life much easier than dealing with an 85mm f/1.2 on FF.


----------



## mestes1999 (Aug 6, 2019)

Thanks, I found the grid. There is also an option for the level, but I can't get it to show even though I selected it.

Wrench Menu
4th Tab - Shooting info disp
Screen Info Settings
It has four options and you can hit edit screen and it the level is there. But even if I check everything, it never shows it


----------



## mestes1999 (Aug 6, 2019)

stevelee said:


> I have the G7X II and am seriously considering upgrading to the III, or since it has been downsized, the G5X II. I don't know whether I'd use the viewfinder enough to make that a factor, and the extra zoom might be nice, but not enough to determine my purchase unless tests show it superior to the older lens.
> 
> So I'd be interested in any reactions you have to the III from the standpoint of a user of a II. Do you miss anything on the III that you were used to, other than not figuring out the grid and level? I might want to buy the camera before a trip in October. But I might wait until next year before I shoot some video in June, if it turns out that video is the only improvement that I'd really benefit from.
> 
> I am really happy with the pictures I get from the II. I'm disappointed that the manual is not ready. I will peruse it before making any buying decisions. I would want to hold the new 5 in my hands and look through the viewfinder before I decide which and whether.


I haven't had any time with it, just got it yesterday. However I'm hoping it's better than my Mark 2. In my opinion, the Mark 2 was worse than my Mark 1 for cloudy shots or anything that wasn't full sun or full dark.


----------



## iamjhil (Aug 6, 2019)

stevelee said:


> Is there reason to believe that the autofocus is worse on the III than on the II? I know it's a new sensor to Canon. Could we figure that the autofocus ought to be about as good as it was on the Sony models that used that sensor? Are there any Dr. Tongue 3D horror videos that show the autofocus problems of the Sony?
> 
> I've never had any focus problems with the II, at least none I could blame on the camera. The laws of optics are such that depth of field and hyperlocal distances at these short focal lengths make life much easier than dealing with an 85mm f/1.2 on FF.



II worked well.

I jumped on twitter, and it seems like a lot of people taking about the autofocus not working well. I definitely need to take it out and take it through the ringer, and see if it is an issue


----------



## stevelee (Aug 6, 2019)

mestes1999 said:


> I haven't had any time with it, just got it yesterday. However I'm hoping it's better than my Mark 2. In my opinion, the Mark 2 was worse than my Mark 1 for cloudy shots or anything that wasn't full sun or full dark.


Really? That runs contrary to my experience with the II. (I never used the Mark 1. I used the S120 as my prior travel camera.) I always shoot Raw. Was the problem with JPEGs, or did you also experience it with Raw files? Does it make bad auto decisions about picture styles, or something?

Editing in ACR, I almost always find that I prefer the white balance that the camera chose to any of the presets or the auto choices in the software. Tweaking the Highlight slider can generally recover enough detail in the sky in very contrasty scenes. In extreme situations, such as in a dark cathedral when I want interior detail but also I want the stained glass to look great, I bracket exposures and merge in Photoshop.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 6, 2019)

iamjhil said:


> I jumped on twitter, and it seems like a lot of people taking about the autofocus not working well. I definitely need to take it out and take it through the ringer, and see if it is an issue



Do they make any specific complaints, or just keep repeating "sux"?


----------



## mestes1999 (Aug 6, 2019)

stevelee said:


> Really? That runs contrary to my experience with the II. (I never used the Mark 1. I used the S120 as my prior travel camera.) I always shoot Raw. Was the problem with JPEGs, or did you also experience it with Raw files? Does it make bad auto decisions about picture styles, or something?
> 
> Editing in ACR, I almost always find that I prefer the white balance that the camera chose to any of the presets or the auto choices in the software. Tweaking the Highlight slider can generally recover enough detail in the sky in very contrasty scenes. In extreme situations, such as in a dark cathedral when I want interior detail but also I want the stained glass to look great, I bracket exposures and merge in Photoshop.


I'm not a power user by any means, I almost always leave it on Auto, but with the Mark 2, images were very dark if it was a cloudy day. Mark1 never had that issue.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 6, 2019)

The auto settings have worked great for me in P mode shooting Raw.


----------



## mestes1999 (Aug 6, 2019)

So back to my original post and screenshots, anyone know how to turn on the electronic level?


----------



## Kit. (Aug 6, 2019)

I don't have the camera, but I have read people saying that the electronic level on it is not compatible with face detect autofocus.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 6, 2019)

stevelee said:


> Do they make any specific complaints, or just keep repeating "sux"?


This should make it pretty clear:





The ~5s delay to focus on his face in bright sunlight nearly every time he panned to his face was rather unimpressive in this one:





About half his video blog review using it is misfocused or the camera hunting:


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 7, 2019)

mestes1999 said:


> So back to my original post and screenshots, anyone know how to turn on the electronic level?





http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/1/0300028631/01/psg1x-mk3-cu-ja.pdf



Page 188


----------



## stevelee (Aug 7, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> This should make it pretty clear:



Yes, I've seen those. Did they make some with the same sensor in the Sonys? 

The videos are so foreign to anything I ever shot, that I can't really compare how it focuses compared to the Mark II or anything else.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 7, 2019)

stevelee said:


> Yes, I've seen those. Did they make some with the same sensor in the Sonys?


You think they should get out the RX100 Mk IV and try the same test as a comparison because it probably has the same sensor (even though it's a 4 years old model), or are you asking about the new RX100 Mk VII?

The Mk VII isn't out yet and the only reviews so far are from people who were given the camera by Sony so they're not likely to highlight its shortcomings, just like the people given the G7X Mk III by Canon didn't reveal just how dreadful the AF is. It took them getting into the hands of paying customers for that to be revealed.

The Mk IV is a 4 year old model, why shouldn't the G7X Mk III be compared to the best in the marketplace its being sold into? It's no ones fault but Canon's that the camera is using an older Sony sensor. Canon makes 1" sensors too and they could have put any sensor in the G7X Mk III they wanted.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 7, 2019)

So folks didn't make this kind of video three years ago and post them on line?

I just think it could be instructive to see whether there is some inherent flaw in the sensor, or if Canon's software is to blame for the perceived problems.

But mainly my interest would be in understanding whether I would have autofocus problems with the new model that I don't have with the old one. If so, I'm sticking with the II. The new-to-Canon sensor is one of the main changes, so it would be helpful to know whether the sensor is problematic in that regard. As I've said, in nearly three years and 6000 pictures, I've not experienced any autofocus problems with the II. Also, the same sensor is used in the G5X II, and probably the same software, so if I don't want the 7 III, I don't want the 5 II.

I have looked at a more recent Sony model, and since they went to longer and slower lenses, I would not want it for my travel camera. If that is still true of the Mk VII, I wouldn't be interested in it either.


----------



## javisan23 (Aug 7, 2019)

stevelee said:


> So folks didn't make this kind of video three years ago and post them on line?
> 
> I just think it could be instructive to see whether there is some inherent flaw in the sensor, or if Canon's software is to blame for the perceived problems.
> 
> ...



Caveat, I don't have the mk III, but I've seen many videos on YouTube from people of already who do have it giving feedback and have read other forums as well. I think one of two things are happening:


Almost 3 years have passed since the RX100 V, which includes a better AF system, was released. I think the expectations for the G7X III were high with regards to the AF. Maybe it was assumed that given the amount of time that has passed, and the competition, that it was a given that Canon would improve the AF on the III. From what I've seen, at best, the AF appears to perform the same as the II.
Maybe there is an issue with the camera that can be fixed via firmware.
Maybe its both, it could be an issue with the III that could be making the AF perform worse that the II. If they fix it via firmware, people might still not be happy as they have seen what a better point and shoot AF can do since 2016.

Seems you are happy with the II. I cant find any reason for you to upgrade, except if you want the mic input. 4K is also not a reason to upgrade. There are plenty of videos already from actual users complaining about overheating (some even 6 minutes into a recording).


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 7, 2019)

stevelee said:


> So folks didn't make this kind of video three years ago and post them on line?


I don't know. I didn't go looking for them. However, I decided to go take a look based on your comment. I didn't find gobs of complaints about the AF in the RX100 Mk IV. However, from the videos I watched the AF on the RX100 Mk IV while shoot video seems a bit uninspired compared to what you can get in 2019. It doesn't seem to be as bad as the G7X MkIII. It seems about on par with the G7X Mk II.



> But mainly my interest would be in understanding whether I would have autofocus problems with the new model that I don't have with the old one. If so, I'm sticking with the II. The new-to-Canon sensor is one of the main changes, so it would be helpful to know whether the sensor is problematic in that regard. As I've said, in nearly three years and 6000 pictures, I've not experienced any autofocus problems with the II. Also, the same sensor is used in the G5X II, and probably the same software, so if I don't want the 7 III, I don't want the 5 II.


Several of the reviews out there say the the AF is worse than the II. However those are subjective opinions from Mk II owners who are trying out the Mk III. I don't think they have empirical data showing such.



> I have looked at a more recent Sony model, and since they went to longer and slower lenses, I would not want it for my travel camera. If that is still true of the Mk VII, I wouldn't be interested in it either.


As a travel camera I think the 24-200mm equivalent lens is a better option than a 24-70mm. For a vlog'ing camera it's probably not.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 8, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> As a travel camera I think the 24-200mm equivalent lens is a better option than a 24-70mm. For a vlog'ing camera it's probably not.



And that is a matter of priorities. The longer zoom is a much slower lens. For *my* travel pictures, having an f/1.8-2.8 lens is more important than having a longer zoom. Now perhaps having f/2.8 at 200mm equivalent would be the best of both worlds, but then it would be harder to make it fit in my pocket. I don't do vlogging, and can't imagine that I'd ever want to. 

On the other side, I wouldn't want to be limited to 70mm, either. The 100mm equivalent of the G7X II or III works fine for me. I'm much more likely to wish I had something wider than 24mm than to wish for something longer than 100mm when I'm traveling. For wider, I make shots to stitch together once I get home. For a little more telephoto, I can crop, up to a point, of course. The G7X II replaced an S120 as my travel camera. It would zoom to 120mm equivalent. I have not missed the difference. There is enough more resolution with the 1" sensor so that I can crop the pictures tighter than the 120mm would give me, and can still have more pixels than with the S120 shot's whole frame when zoomed in. Other folks will want different zoom ranges, and that's fine. 

Anyway, I don't need to rush into this purchase (or nonpurchase). If by October when I'm traveling again I'm that the III (or the 5 II) will be advantageous for me, then I might make a purchase. I'll still watch these threads and look at reviews over the next month or two. Otherwise, I'll be happy to tromp around Italy and sail to some Greek islands using the G7X II to document the trip but not get in my way. I might have to restrain my residual amount of GAS, however.

Thanks to you and to the others who are helping provide ideas and links to consider.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 8, 2019)

More winning or just whining?


----------



## stevelee (Aug 8, 2019)

It seems to do fine some of the time, and get fooled some of the time. It is hard to tell much when the light is bright and the ND filter is off, since the lens is topped down somewhat and the difference between in and out of focus is not so great. Without comparison videos of the II or of the Sony from three years ago I don't learn much. 

What he is doing for the test is so far from something that is likely to happen in a video of mine, I'm not sure that even the bad results say anything about what I might experience in real life. I'd try making my own version of the test if I had someone to play Bruno and four pretty stewardesses. 




I also don't know what this might mean for autofocus in still photography.


----------



## Stereodude (Aug 8, 2019)

In contrast, I learned a lot from his several videos and those posted by others. I learned it has very substandard AF performance in video for a camera in 2019 compared to class leaders. Considering that and other things like overheating and the usual rash of typical Canon feature crippling there's no way it's worth the price Canon wants for it. Whether the sensor is responsible or Canon's processing of the data is irrelevant to me. The camera is the sum of its parts and programming, and this one adds up to a big fat 0 if you want to use it for video and are expecting competitive performance.

I had such high hopes for the G7X III, but Canon... You dashed them.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 30, 2021)

Since this thread has been revived I will update my experience. I looked at getting an M50 for my travel camera, and took another brief look at the Sony option. I decided to get the G5X II. I still wanted something that would fit in my jacket or pants pocket, and I still prioritized lens speed over long focal length. The G7X III seems to have been aimed more at vlogging, which I don’t do. The pop-up viewfinder of the new 5 is a welcome addition for shooting in bright sunlight. It is not clear enough to use for focusing, but fine for choosing composition. The diopter adjustment is too fussy, so it can take several tries to get it close enough to use. Besides having a little longer zoom (but still a fast lens), the new 5 seems to have a bit better lens otherwise.

I left for Italy in October, 2019, traveled around for over a couple weeks, and then went on a 14-night Mediterranean cruise that came back to other towns in Italy. I threw the G7X II into my bag as a backup, and wound up using it by chance on my first day in Rome, given my sleep-deprived and jet-lagged brain. It did fine, of course. After that I took over 3.000 pictures with the G5X II. I never missed having any longer focal length, and I was happy to be shooting at f/1.8 to 2.8 in dark interiors. I had some great shots of Venice by night as we sailed out, so handheld in the dark from a moving ship. One of the shots is displayed in homes in three states now.

And outdoors in the sun, I was glad to have the viewfinder.


----------

