Well, I know this youtuber always says mostly good things about the cameras he tests, but I was curious to watch his test of Action3.
As expected, he reports good quality videos except for some problems with highlights. He has no focus problems according to his clip at ~ 5:17.


Then I checked his review of Action2. Have a look at the clip at ~4:42... To me, it looks identical to the clip suposedly taken from Action3... Or my brain needs a firmware update...

Shows who to trust and who not to trust.  Good find.  The worst is his comments that close focus is fine.  When in fact the Sony letters are clearly blurry.

10-Bit Posted at 10-7 09:33
Shows who to trust and who not to trust.  Good find.  The worst is his comments that close focus is fine.  When in fact the Sony letters are clearly blurry.

Wow. Good catch. He actually recycled the footage. The clouds cannot ever be identical. So dishonest. And I find it funny that he mentioned that the close focus distance is good, like he knows the problem exists but he felt the need to blatantly lie about it. When he tested the audio it clearly shows his camera suffers from the close focus problem too.

Yup that person is removing comments that are pointing that out simply speaking he's a lier not reviewer.

Good find there

Wow.  I was about to mention that review but I hadn't spotted this.  I was initially incensed by what seemed to be a deliberately misleading sample, but having very carefully compared the two reviews, I can see that elsewhere in the Action 3 review he has stated that he'd used Action 2 samples on the grounds that the innards of the two cameras are the same, and the Action 2 samples used in the Action 3 review are labelled as such correctly everywhere but in this close focus example.  So I think what has happened here is that the label in incorrect in error on the close focus example - I think in the preparation of the review he's got himself confused at this point.  It's a pity that it's happened given the emerging concern over this issue but I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Author of the video here.
Yes, I have mislabeled 1 clip in a video with 100s of cuts and labels, sue me... I have used Action 2 clips in this video which are labeled as Action 2 clips, so I am obviously not intentionally lying about that. It is a clip from my upcoming comparison video. Also, it doesn't matter at all, you can consider it Action 3 footage. The close focus IQ is the same - definitely not perfect, as you can see in the video. It is the same deal as with Hero 10 / 11. I have said that it is fine for vlogging which it is, as you can see at 10:27. That clip is actually supposed to show how close it can focus (which is why I am moving the camera) as it was a year ago when I showed it in my Action 2 review, so you can keep your nonsense conspiracy theories about my honesty to yourself. I make these videos in my free time to help people with products that I purchase myself, so showing a little bit of respect is the least that you can do in return.
Also, it is not an issue, it is a compromise. That is simply what happens when you combine a larger sensor, brighter aperture and fixed focus… I don’t really understand what all the fuss is about and why it is a big deal now, when nobody noticed it on Action 2… I guess that is how the internet works. Just wait till the internet finds out that the Hero 10 / 11 has the same "issue", as you can see in my year old Hero 10 Black review…
People just need to understand that every camera (including action cameras) is a set of compromises. Having solid low light performance, everything in focus and not having to use AF are contradicting requirements... always have been.
BTW I haven't deleted any comments underneath this video, that is a lie.

It seems you have missed the point - if you do not see what the fuss is about.  The OA3 early on was noticed to have a “soft image” by a number of very early adopter users.  So a multitude of images were posted here and compared at the 30cm minimum focus distance advertised by DJI - and distances greater than 30cm - just to be “safe”.  After considerable sample images were reviewed - it was concluded by users and DJI Support - that there was indeed a “close focus issue”.  So DJI came out with beta firmware in an attempt to correct it.  Unfortunately it did not resolve the “issue”.  

Pretty much all of us here - fully comprehend that every camera has compromises.  We are not naïve by any stretch.  Many here have years and years of photography and videography expertise.  Some growing up with film as kids.  So it may be useful and prudent for you - to have a look see - at the various threads here talking about this.

Calling viewers out as “cowboys” and getting all defensive with comments of “sue me” does not appear to be helping you much.  

Anyways poke around.  You may find something interesting.  Nobody really cares how the Action 2 and Hero 9 - 10 - 11 close focus.  As that is not a DJI Support “issue”.

Again, that is why I have shown that clip now and a year ago - to show how close it can focus. The reason why I have said that the minimal focusing distance is not compromised is that the Insta360 1" Mod, representing action cameras with large sensors, has closest focus distance of 1m. I admit that I should have probably predicted that not everybody will be aware of that context. That is also why I specifically said that it is ok for vlogging.

The reason why I don't understand what all the fuss is about is that as far as I know, nobody has complained about that with the Action 2, so I assumed that people understand that it is a compromise associated with larger sensor.

If somebody outright accuses me of dishonesty and laying because I have mislabeled one clip in a video that took me considerable amount of time and money to make, he / she will always get "calm down cowboy" type of response, I apologise for absolutely nothing in that regard. As you can see, I am perfectly willing to discuss it as long the other side is willing to show a little bit of respect.

It is never good to “assume” anything.  Nobody here really cares about the Insta 1” mod.  Nobody here really cares about v-logging.

As well commenting that it is the same sensor as the Action 2 may be misleading.  Unless of course you obviously have official DJI confirmation in an email somewhere.

You do you.   This is a 30cm close focus issue.

Yes, I have noticed that you don't care a lot, which probably explains you attitude. Nevertheless, have a good time criticising, accusing and complaining as much as you can....

Hmm.  Interesting comment.  If I and many other forum users here did not care - there may not be the current DJI beta firmware out.  What have you done?  

That was a direct response to your "Nobody here really cares about the Insta 1” mod.  Nobody here really cares about v-logging.". if you don't care about my reasoning, I don't care about yours.
I have said (written) all that I wanted to say here, so I will move on to something more constructive. Bye. BTW V-Log and Vlog are completely different things.

You stated also that the minimum focus of the Action 2 was not compromised.  Did you ever test that the minimum focus distance of 30cm was actually achieved?  Because in the video the “Sony” letters are definitely not in focus like the background.

Also waiting for your response that you did in fact have DJI confirm to you that the OA3 sensor was indeed the same as the Action 2.  Thx.

I have literally tested the minimal focus distance in the clip that you are showing lol. Yes, I have done the same thing with Action 3. If you are asking whether I have measured it with a ruler, no I haven't. I have already explained "not compromised" quote, please read more carefully. I mean that, your questions form the comment bellow have been answered more than once here alerady.
There are different methods to prove that the sensor is the same, but for real this time, that's it from me regarding this topic, I don't have a time to answer the same question over and over. Bye.

Well no - please do not run off like that.  This is getting more interesting each time you respond.

It should be very clear to you a number of forum members did measure with a ruler.  As that is why DJI Support confirmed a beta firmware was required.

1.    You confirmed you did not measure with a ruler - yet you incorrectly stated the minimum focus distance was 30cm
2.    You obviously also did not get confirmation from DJI that the OA3 sensor was in fact the same as the Action 2 - so you incorrectly stated that
3.    You have done nothing to help resolve the “soft focus issue” that has been confirmed by DJI Support - so you have contributed nothing for that

Yet you throw stones at anyone calling you out on mistakes you have made.

Please note that it was not me.  So that is another mistake.  I was just responding to your rant is all.  It was someone else.

---DELETED---

Rulers like from 30 CM or fro the lens itself.

I presume that will be me. Here's the thing Mr.Autor of the videos. There is difference between "mislabeling" clip and voice-overing it. You clearly talk about OA3 and how uncompromise focus it has while showing footage from OA2. In reality multiple people reported issue with focus, there is already couple threads on forum. More and more videos on YT start to show up about it with side by side comparison. Oh and let's not forget about removing commens that point out to this issue. Am I a**hole probably but at least I'm honest with myself and others.

Publicity it is now becoming.

Alright, I am willing to answer your questions, but for real, read carefully. I have already explained "not compromised close focus distance" voice-over in comment #14. Yes, I admit that I haven't maeasured it with a ruler, but it is shown on the screen, so I obviously didn't want to decieve anybody. I have done the same test with OA3 with the same result for my upcoming comparison video and I have copied the wrong clip, sorry about that.
Deleted comments are a pure lie and false accusation. Comments from "Arctic Exploring", "PrinciPal" and "Peter Nicholls" who pointed out mislabeling are visible with my response. I have no problem addmitting my mistake in video, but I have a problem with unreasonable reactions and unlimited accusations regarding my hyper-evil intentions, hence calm down cowboys.

I thought I would join this discussion because there is clearly a problem with the Osmo Action 3, but I'm not convinced it's a hardware issue.  And I also don't understand the pre-occupation with minimal focal length because my own tests today suggest the problem is much bigger.

I have been running tests for the last few hours with 3 cameras - Pocket 2, Action 2 and Osmo Action 3.  I have been using the Pro mode to set ISO and shutter speed manually to allow a fairer comparison between the 3 cameras.  They all have the same sensor size, but obviously the Pocket 2 is superior because of the f1.8 aperture.  So, no surprise Pocket 2 video footage and 12mp photos are super sharp compared to the Action 2 and Osmo Action 3.  Interestingly, there is not much to separate the quality of video and photos between the Action 2 and Osmo Action 3 - but the Action 2 is marginally better.  

What I don't know is what the problem is with the Osmo Action 3.  Sharpness is not great irrespective of the distance of the object outside the minimum focal length.  If the problem is the build quality of the lens, then DJI will be getting lots of returns.  However, my gut feel is that this can be fixed with a firmware update.

Let's hope DJI come up with a fix - but I'm not holding my breath based on their track record with other products and the fact that problems I have reported to them over the years have never been sorted.

There  is one more issue. Both Action 2 and 3 use relatively high shutter speed and therefore higher ISO even on a bright day with Auto settings, which increases the noise. That is probably necessary because of the digital Image stabilization which works better with higher shutter speeds. Regarding the Action 2 and 3 comparison, I have noticed that the Action 3 has better IQ at the edges of the frame, other than that, it seems to be the same.
IMO expecting GoPro or even Pocket 2 IQ out of Action 2 / 3 wouldn't be reasonable because of the extremely wide lens. Those are generally more difficult to make at certain leven of optical qualities which is probably main compromise.

Now there you go.  That was not so hard was it.  Who are these “cowboys” mr author speaks about.  Why call him a liar - or whatever he is so upset about.

“Deleted comments are a pure lie and false accusation. Comments from "Arctic Exploring", "PrinciPal" and "Peter Nicholls" who pointed out mislabeling are visible with my response. I have no problem addmitting my mistake in video, but I have a problem with unreasonable reactions and unlimited accusations regarding my hyper-evil intentions, hence calm down cowboys.”

Oh - and nobody cares for red herrings and misdirection.  All we care about right now is “close focus” meeting the DJI advertising criteria of 30cm to infinity.

If you put your hand up and identity yourself - then mr author can direct his pent up anger towards you - and not anyone else here on this fine forum.  Thx.  

You know, there is always an option to write something like: Hey, I noticed a mistake in your video, could you clarify that...

The Hybrid Shooter Posted at 10-8 04:52
You know, there is always an option to write something like: Hey, I noticed a mistake in your video, could you clarify that...

Let me ask you something, some people as you mentioned pointed out in the comments your mistake what will you do with that information except answering in the comment section which let's face it nearly no one reads (in overall as the whole platform)?

You would be surprised, a lot of people read it. I have put in pinned comment, and I have written a community post about it. Since the result is the same with OA3 I will leave it be.

With all due respect, how is this the same result?

That is comparison OA1 and OA3. Clip in my video was shot on OA2 with same result as OA3. Now you can see how easy it is to make a mistake. Should I call you a liar? Is that the proper way to react in this kind of sitaution?

The Hybrid Shooter Posted at 10-8 05:29
That is comparison OA1 and OA3. Clip in my video was shot on OA2 with same result as OA3. Now you can see how easy it is to make a mistake

But there is a difference between OA2 and OA3 in clarity/sharpness.
When you make a video talking positive about OA3 that there is no noticable difference, then you are wrong. Could be a mixup from your side or trying to talk about an issue that you don't see.

Why we mention your video here is because you are misleading your viewers to belive that they will buy a product that is better than what it is.

And yes I know all bigger youtubers do that, that have got products for free from manufactures to talk nicely about their products. Not sure if you did, but you will earn more money on your videos than you paid for the camera anyway

So we just wanted to point it out since you made a clearly "mistake" in your video using old footage.

The point being made is that the later DJI Action cameras seem to have a softer image than the first one - which is contrary to expectation.  

But look, this is really getting nowhere - there's infinite scope for misunderstandings in all this, people are reacting to each other as if everyone on the internet has the same sweet nature (and they don't any more than in real life, and that's all part of being human), and the focus (!) should be entirely on precisely what the problem is, how it is being caused, and how it can be fixed  -  if that's possible - maybe it's simply a choice of which performance compromise has to be chosen due to the laws of physics and, for that matter, the laws of commerce.   


I (Peter Nicholls) am entirely convinced that the labelling of the sample in the review and/or its selection was a human error - I spent at least an hour going through the two reviews before coming to that conclusion, calming myself down, and editing my rather rude comment on YouTube before Mr Shooter saw it - it's just unfortunate that the error was made in relation to a matter which is currently under considerable debate.  Stuff happens.

So - maybe these discussions about the actual problem and the actual solutions should continue in the main thread on the subject, and we should regard the matter of this particular review as closed?

johansenfoto Posted at 10-8 05:53
But there is a difference between OA2 and OA3 in clarity/sharpness.
When you make a video talking positive about OA3 that there is no noticable difference, then you are wrong. Could be a mixup from your side or trying to talk about an issue that you don't see.

No, I am talking specifically about close focusing, not about overall image quality, I haven't compared that yet. If we are talking about the close focus distance, that really is the same, I have compared the samples, so I don't see anything misleading there.
I paid for that Action 3 myself, I am not a big YouTuber by any means. I won't get the money that I paid for that camera back, I would need about 100K views to get the money back that is very unlikely.

fansfe82067d Posted at 10-8 05:54
The point being made is that the later DJI Action cameras seem to have a softer image than the first one - which is contrary to expectation.  

But look, this is really getting nowhere - there's infinite scope for misunderstandings in all this, people are reacting to each other as if everyone on the internet has the same sweet nature (and they don't any more than in real life, and that's all part of being human), and the focus (!) should be entirely on precisely what the problem is, how it is being caused, and how it can be fixed  -  if that's possible - maybe it's simply a choice of which performance compromise has to be chosen due to the laws of physics and, for that matter, the laws of commerce.   

I agree with you
Let's talk negative about DJI now for fooling us

fansfe82067d Posted at 10-8 05:54
The point being made is that the later DJI Action cameras seem to have a softer image than the first one - which is contrary to expectation.  

But look, this is really getting nowhere - there's infinite scope for misunderstandings in all this, people are reacting to each other as if everyone on the internet has the same sweet nature (and they don't any more than in real life, and that's all part of being human), and the focus (!) should be entirely on precisely what the problem is, how it is being caused, and how it can be fixed  -  if that's possible - maybe it's simply a choice of which performance compromise has to be chosen due to the laws of physics and, for that matter, the laws of commerce.   

IMO worse IQ than with OA1 is to be expected. It is all about that extremely wide lens, those are very difficult to make at a certain level of optical qualities.
The processing can be improved, there is still a big gap between super-detailed stills and video, so the hardware is better than that.
IMO the biggest issue is actually the dynamic rage that nobody else seems to be talking about

We just need PrinciPal to step up now - as AE has put in his 2 cents.  Then the 4 of you can say your piece - and we can all carry on.  Mr author is clearly upset - “with unreasonable reactions and unlimited accusations regarding my hyper-evil intentions" he claims you have made against him.

In retrospect - mr author should apologize to the rest of us innocent bystanders on this fine forum.

has anyone ever taken the time to read the manual.  2 points whaoo!

The Hybrid Shooter Posted at 10-8 06:04
No, I am talking specifically about close focusing, not about overall image quality, I haven't compared that yet. If we are talking about the close focus distance, that really is the same, I have compared the samples, so I don't see anything misleading there.
I paid for that Action 3 myself, I am not a big YouTuber by any means. I won't get the money that I paid for that camera back, I would need about 100K views to get the money back  that is very unlikely.

To all you others, the best channel I really like watching about action cameras is this guy:


He test out everyone from cheap/smaller brands to gopro, and I'm just waiting for his next upload about OA3 since this was the first he made.

I’ve been chatting with ‘Worth it or Not’ about focus and he has the same issue. Faces look unsharp, but their shirts are in focus.

Iancraig10 Posted at 10-8 07:16
I’ve been chatting with ‘Worth it or Not’ about focus and he has the same issue. Faces look unsharp, but their shirts are in focus.

I told him about OA3 being soft before he got his, so he was aware of it. That's why he didn't update firmware before making this video.

The Hybrid Shooter Posted at 10-8 00:01
Author of the video here.
Yes, I have mislabeled 1 clip in a video with 100s of cuts and labels, sue me... I have used more Action 2 clips in this video which are labeled as Action 2 clips, so I am obviously not intentionally lying about that. It is a clip from my upcoming comparison video. Also, it doesn't matter at all, you can consider it Action 3 footage. The close focus IQ is the same - definitely not perfect, as you can see in the video. It is the same deal as with Hero 10 / 11. I have said that it is fine for vlogging which it is, as you can see at 10:27. That clip is actually supposed to show how close it can focus (which is why I am moving the camera) as it was a year ago when I showed it in my Action 2 review, so you can keep your nonsense conspiracy theories about my honesty to yourself. I make these videos in my free time to help people with products that I purchase myself, so showing a little bit of respect is the least that you can do in return.
Also, it is not an issue, it is a compromise. That is simply what happens when you combine a larger sensor, brighter aperture and fixed focus… I don’t really understand what all the fuss is about and why it is a big deal now, when nobody noticed it on Action 2… I guess that is how the internet works. Just wait till the internet finds out that the Hero 10 / 11 has the same "issue", as you can see in my year old Hero 10 Black review…

Hey man, own your mistake. You maybe have not intentionally lied about it but unintentionally did. Stop with this persecuted and arrogant attitude. Own up your mistake and make a good video about it, not with recycled footage. Action 2 and Action 3 are not the same camera period. They may have the same specs but something is clearly wrong in the calibration department and software. I have watched many videos with Action 2 at the time of it's release and it's clearly better than OA3 in all respects (IQ wise). So what you are not a big youtuber, who cares. The thing is your video comes out as a blatant lie and fanboy dream. At least the insta360 1 inch mod states that the focus is 1m to infinity. No product should say on the label something and not deliver. Give me a break with the compromise philosophy of yours. It does not apply here. Wanna be a big youtuber? Start by being more diplomatic not arrogant when you clearly made a misleading video (intentionally or not). Don't wanna be a big youtuber and you do it for the sake of it? Nobody cares you spent 1 hour or 100 hours with 100 cuts. The end result is what matters and you messed up and you should ignore this thread altogether, it won't affect your reputation.