G7X Mark 3 turn on grid and level?

M

mestes1999

Feb 28, 2019
8
7
#1
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?
 
#3
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.
 
Upvote 0
#4
iamjhil said:
Just picked mine up. Kinda scared about all this talk about crap auto focus....
Click to expand...

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.
 
Upvote 0
#5
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
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0817.jpg
    IMG_0817.jpg
    73.9 KB · Views: 310
  • IMG_0816.jpg
    IMG_0816.jpg
    96.8 KB · Views: 290
Upvote 0
#6
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Upvote 0
#7
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Upvote 0
#8
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Upvote 0
#10
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Upvote 0
#17
stevelee said:
Yes, I've seen those. Did they make some with the same sensor in the Sonys?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#18
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.
 
Upvote 0
#19
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.

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.
Click to expand...

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
 
Upvote 0
#20
stevelee said:
So folks didn't make this kind of video three years ago and post them on line?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
R5mk2 and Godox AD200Pro - Anyone Successful?
Replies
0
Views
319
Mattmangrease
M
M
R1. I got one!
Replies
35
Views
958
mmmm
M
jasonrohrer
Which Canon DSLR works best for manually-focused EF lenses through the optical viewfinder?
Replies
37
Views
12K
jasonrohrer
jasonrohrer
D
Problems with Yongnuo YN-600EX-RT on Eos R5
Replies
1
Views
2K
YuengLinger
YuengLinger
jasonrohrer
Has anyone ever tried using Canon CN-E Cinema Primes with an EOS DSLR?
Replies
0
Views
2K
jasonrohrer
jasonrohrer
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu