Five days after Insta360 dropped their handheld gimbal cam, the Luna Ultra, DJI finally pulled back the curtain on the Osmo Pocket 4P’s price tag.
Last night on June 15, DJI officially unveiled the brand-new Osmo Pocket 4P pocket cinema camera, packed with a fresh 1-inch wide-angle main sensor, 17-stop dynamic range, and D-Log 2 color grading. They’ve also added a 60mm mid-range lens, letting you shoot buttery smooth 4K slow-motion videos at up to 240 FPS.
In terms of pricing, the Osmo Pocket 4P standard bundle is set at 3,799 yuan, which comes with the main body, a built-in fill light, a 1/4-inch threaded handle, and a compact carry pouch;the Vlog bundle jumps to 4,299 yuan, adding the DJI Mic Mini 2 transmitter, fill light, and a follow-screen remote controller.
Pre-orders are live starting today across the DJI Official Store, JD.com, Tmall, Douyin, and authorized offline boutiques. NUPIAO reached out to e-commerce support, who confirmed: “The official rollout hits June 23, so actual shipping dates depend on the launch window.” As of this writing, already 37,000 folks have pre-booked it on JD alone.
Back in April, the regular Osmo Pocket 4 went on sale for 2,999 yuan (standard) and 3,799 yuan (all-around kit). Right before the May Day holiday, stock vanished everywhere. Within days of launch, online shelves were wiped clean, offline queues stretched past a month, the official site had timed restocks, and second-hand markets were slapping huge markups on available units.
On June 2, DJI held their “12 Years of Cinematic Imaging” sharing session. DJI spokesperson Zhang Xiaonan directly addressed the shortage rumors, firmly shutting down any hunger-marketing claims. She noted that whenever stock arrives, it goes out immediately across all channels. For the Pocket 3, production ramped up continuously all year with monthly capacity doubling. With the Pocket 4 blowing past expectations, factories are running overtime—the shortage simply boils down to demand wildly outpacing initial forecasts.
Zhang Xiaonan also dropped some big numbers at the event: “As of 2025, the Pocket series has moved over 10 million units globally.”
Now, here’s the interesting part: just ahead of the Pocket 4P launch, rival Insta360 officially jumped into the gimbal camera ring.
On June 10, Insta360 brought out their very first handheld gimbal camera, the Luna Ultra. Co-engineered with Leica, it packs a dual-camera setup featuring a 1-inch main sensor and an F1.8 aperture, capable of recording 4K 10-bit i-Log footage. It also ships with a detachable screen featuring remote control and camera link functionality, plus an optional head-tracking module.
When it comes to cost, the standard bundle originally lists at 4,705 yuan but kicks off at 3,999 yuan at launch; the creator bundle bumps up with a battery grip, wide-angle adapter, and mic transmitter. While the original price sits at 5,705 yuan, the launch price drops to 4,849 yuan.
Right around the time the Insta360 Luna Ultra hit the scene, June 12 media reports revealed that DJI and DJI Osmo filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Insta360 and its affiliates in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on June 10–11 local time. The complaint alleges that the Luna series gimbal cams infringe on two design patents and four invention patents held by DJI. These disputed patents cover core underlying tech related to the Osmo Pocket line, including gimbal electromechanical control and shot-capture systems.
DJI argues that the Luna’s rotating screen design, gimbal mode switching, and subject tracking features all fall squarely under DJI’s earlier US-approved patent protections. In the lawsuit, DJI is asking the court for a permanent injunction against sales and other infringing acts, along with disgorgement of infringing profits, compensatory damages, and full coverage of litigation and attorney fees.
On June 12, Insta360 fired back, filing a counter-patent suit against DJI in the US covering five invention patents tied to gimbal cameras and panoramic cams. These span critical tech like gimbal stabilization algorithms, pointing control, smooth anti-shake processing, motion-data overlays, and panorama video stabilization. Simultaneously, Insta360 petitioned China’s CNIPA to invalidate related family patents. This marks the first overseas patent showdown between the two companies since DJI’s domestic drone patent lawsuit in March 2026.
This isn’t their first rodeo when it comes to IP fights. Back on March 23, NUPIAO learned that DJI formally sued Insta360 at the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court over six patents involving ownership disputes, naming several former core DJI R&D engineers.
To break it down, this is DJI’s first domestic IP ownership case. The patents in question heavily target drone flight control, structural design, and image processing. DJI’s filing claims these inventions were created within a year of the ex-employees leaving DJI, and they directly tie back to the work tasks those engineers handled while on the payroll.
Insiders point out that in two patents related to drone flight control and structure, Insta360’s Chinese application listed one inventor as “requesting non-disclosure of name,” whereas the international counterpart clearly names the individual—a former core DJI R&D lead. That engineer was deeply embedded in DJI’s flagship drone projects and had full access to the core tech stack during their tenure.
Following the buzz, Insta360 put out an official statement addressing the rumors. The company acknowledged media reports about DJI’s Shenzhen lawsuit involving six patents and alleged ex-DJI staff involvement. As of now, they haven’t received formal court documents. Internal reviews confirm the engineers joined Insta360 within a year of leaving DJI, and the patents they submitted as inventors were independent innovations developed during their Insta360 tenure, fully compliant with internal and external regulations. Insta360 emphasized that keeping inventor names private was done strictly according to law, and these patents aren’t considered core or major assets, meaning they won’t materially impact operations, finances, or future growth. The company pledged to keep a close watch on the case and fulfill all disclosure obligations as required.
