[quitit]

It is needlessly smug and overconfident.

The core problem is that taking a photo with a camera isn't a valid comparison to the optics of the human eye.

Unlike digital cameras which are designed to bring colour into focus on a single plane (the sensor), the natural human eye produces a mixture of focal points dependent on wavelength of light, falling before and after the macula. The display+lens proximity to the cornea and natural crystalline lens needs to be accounted for; it's not going to be perfectly planar to the eye, and that is going to cause blurring which will change dependent on how the digital camera rig is arranged as well as lens selection.

Analysis based on photos taken through the viewport is an insufficient approach to draw conclusions as they don't account for phenomena present in the human eye. A secondary factor is that certain types of blurring may be intentional to offset the development of myopia. (It could even be to help prevent the appearance of aliasing.)

One can take "thousands" of photos of VR goggles, it doesn't make them an ophthalmologist. It makes them good at taking photos of VR goggles.

[peddling-brink]

I don’t have an MQ3, so I can’t compare, but I can say the photo of the blurriness of the AVP is not representative of what the eye sees with that same picture open as large as it will go, as far from the viewer as it will go.

I can see 5 lines, not some amorphous blob.

[quitit]

I was going to add to my comment but it was dragging on a bit: the real test is simply to put it on and wear it.