I agree. Looks great to me but I never had an OLED so I can’t compare it to that only the original.
I had that, and it was better in some ways, but the Switch 2 screen is better in others, but there definately is a blur/smear to it that feels a bit...wierd.
One of the current rumours is that the current screen response time issues are not actually the panel, but that it is deliberately undervolted (let alone overdriven) to save power.
That being the case, if enough feedback comes out about this, it is quite possible that Nintendo will add a 'Screen Power Savings' option in the display settings, with efficiency/performance option, which allow you to either leave as is (default), or to enable default/overdrive voltage to the display to improve the response rate at the cost of battery life. It is absolutely abnormal for a modern screen with the other feature support the S2 screen carries, to have such poor response times; leading to guess its a power saving choice. (45ms at worse, when average of even cheap modern displays is sub 20ms, and sub 10ms for gaming orientated screens)
That way you'd have the option depending on whether you care or see it, or play titles that are affected; to either speed the screen back up to however its manufacturer intended, or to the power saving settings Nintendo have decided to default to.
It may be that such a thing is already on Nintendo's radar; given how long it took them to add Bluetooth headphone support to the Switch 1. Would actually be a pretty sweet display for an LCD if they did that, and it got the screen response times down to sub 8/16ms so the 120Hz refresh rate was actually allowed to exist.