I'll take some better samples and post them here as soon as I get a chance.  But this evening I took some sample pictures of a variety of objects about 10 feet from the camera.  I tested with no filter, then with +1, +2, and +4 diopter filters.  The +1 filter improved sharpness and clarity slightly.  The +2 and +4 diopter filters provided a dramatic difference in sharpenss and clarity, even with subjects 10 feet from the camera.
So the lens focus issue isn't just at 30cm.  My test was at more like 300 centimeters and the +2 and +4 diopters still provided a large bump in clarity.  Consider that if fine detail is slightly blurred away by a lens focus issue, it's also more likely to be lost to noise reduction and compression.  

Eventually I will do some tests outside to see if the diopter filters hurt the clarity at "infinity" focus.

First picture is with no diopter.  The box on the counter is 11 feet from the camera.


Second picture is with a +4 diopter.

---DELETED---

osmonauta Posted at 10-20 17:16
Is this a photo or a screenshot from a video? Was the camera on a tripod? Did you use at least a 1 second delay if you were taking a photo to compensate for any camera shake (...since the shutter is kinda hard to press)?

I was wondering because my photos taken inside is about the same quality as your second one (with the +4 diopter) and my first thought was that you didn't use a delay when you pressed the shutter and/or it wasn't on a tripod. It's weird that ppl get so many different results. There should prolly be a standard test that spells out what settings to use on the camera, including ISO, delay, etc.

All my test pictures look like his first picture, and I use the phone app to take the picture so i dont have the issue with affecting the results.  I've yet to see someone who says their camera is fine to post pictures of it being fine.  Would love to see an example of someones who works great.

---DELETED---

osmonauta Posted at 10-20 17:16
Is this a photo or a screenshot from a video? Was the camera on a tripod? Did you use at least a 1 second delay if you were taking a photo to compensate for any camera shake (...since the shutter is kinda hard to press)?

I was wondering because my photos taken inside is about the same quality as your second one (with the +4 diopter) and my first thought was that you didn't use a delay when you pressed the shutter and/or it wasn't on a tripod. It's weird that ppl get so many different results. There should prolly be a standard test that spells out what settings to use on the camera, including ISO, delay, etc.

These are crops from photos.  Wide mode jpeg.  The Action 3 was on a very stout tripod that I normally use for large cameras.  I didn't use a timer, but I took multiple pictures in different situations with and without various diopters held in front of the lens and the results were always the same.  Without the diopter looked soft and with the diopters always looked far more crisp.

I used manual exposure so it was the same in all photos.  Honestly, this wasn't event the most dramatic example, but the other pics were in my messy spare room, so I didn't post those, lol.

Very interesting.  Crispness of image does suffer on all such cameras in low light (and it looks to me like a low light situation) but the diopter test does look persuasive none the less.  In the first picture you can't see the crumbs round the toaster.  In the second, you can.  

---Deleted---

Great test, thanks, confirm the existing problem.

Can't wait to see your results for infinity focus.


If only there where some filters that could fit without modifying

johansenfoto Posted at 10-21 01:44
Can't wait to see your results for infinity focus.

Yeah, it's very possible that the +4 will be too much for longer distances.  If so, I'm curious if a +2 would be a good compromise.  The +2 made the 30cm to 10 foot range almost as sharp as +4.  So if +2 retains infinity focus while +4 does not (don't know yet), then I'd say +2 would be the way to go.  We'll see.  I wish I could go out tonight, but I won't have time.  Hopefully I'll get time to go out and do some testing tomorrow.

I just got done doing some more video testing.  I'll have to go over the video in detail before I can say 100%, but just from watching through some of my videos I can definitely make some determinations.  First, the +4 diopter is definitely too much for anything other than close focus, mostly because it distorts the outer edges so much.  And a +4 diopter is horrible when used in dewarp mode.  I think the dewarp is applied in specific ways based on the known distortions of the lens, and the diopter messes with that.  It ruins the outer 50% of the frame.

At face/vlogging distances of 18-24", a +2 diopter makes a very noticeable difference in clarity.  At longer distances, a +4 is too much, but interestingly, even things in the far distance appear ever so slightly sharper with a +1 or a +2 diopter.  

The other thing I've found is that other than distances of 24" and less, my particular camera isn't too bad.  Even at close distances, it isn't as soft on my face as what some others have posted.  I'll have to see how it cleans up with a little sharpening and maybe contrast in post.  Either way, when compared to an Osmo Action 1, it's not meaningfully less detailed, even without a diopter.  With a +2, I'd say the Action 3 is sharper and more detailed.  Again, I'll have to get the videos downloaded into my editing rig and go over them in more detail, but that's what I've seen so far.

BigTB Posted at 10-22 09:07
I just got done doing some more video testing.  I'll have to go over the video in detail before I can say 100%, but just from watching through some of my videos I can definitely make some determinations.  First, the +4 diopter is definitely too much for anything other than close focus, mostly because it distorts the outer edges so much.  And a +4 diopter is horrible when used in dewarp mode.  I think the dewarp is applied in specific ways based on the known distortions of the lens, and the diopter messes with that.  It ruins the outer 50% of the frame.

At face/vlogging distances of 18-24", a +2 diopter makes a very noticeable difference in clarity.  At longer distances, a +4 is too much, but interestingly, even things in the far distance appear ever so slightly sharper with a +1 or a +2 diopter.  

Nice, can't wait for the end results since you give this so much attention about checking all out

Here is my quick review of the Action 3 with diopter testing.

keep the good work up,DJI appreciates it I am sure, so do we

BigTB Posted at 10-24 02:48
Here is my quick review of the Action 3 with diopter testing.

https://youtu.be/q68v2WjXA6k

I don’t think applying the diopter shows more detail, it zooms into the detail thats already there, thats all I can see.
If im 4 feet away from an object and I move into 1 foot from the object 100% of the time I will see more detail, the detail is already there,

The details are and will always be. You just have to FOCUS on them.

You did a great test and with +2 diopter you can clearly see how much sharper the footage got. So I hope there could be some 3rd party that could make a +2 filter we all could put on our cameras.