3 Kursi Kerja Terbaik di Harga 1 Jutaan‼️ OCA258s V2, NC4, C3

Product(s) reviewed

The video compares three ergonomic office chairs in the ~1 million IDR class:

1. NC4
2. OCA 258 Sv2 / OCA 258 SV2
3. Oxiom / Axiome C3 (new chair, positioned mid-price between OCA and NC4)

---

Key points & features (by chair)

1) NC4

• Described as “tried and tested” and generally more widely chosen than OCA 258 Sv2.
• Considered the “safest” entry choice for people new to ergonomic work chairs.
• Has a comfortable synchronous mechanism that can recline / lie back.
• Feels firmer / stiffer than OCA 258 Sv2 and tends to keep the user more upright.
• Mechanics are described as simple—more like back tilt/tension to lean back, not a full recline experience like some chairs.
• Seat comfort acceptance is easier for many users to get used to.

Cons / drawbacks mentioned

• Back/armrest area not ideal
  • Armrests are considered too wide and too far forward, making hands feel too far away at the desk.
• Mobility / rolling experience is stated to be the least comfortable among the compared chairs.
• Later scoring suggests NC4 is lowest overall vs C3, but it depends on fit.

---

2) OCA 258 Sv2

• Known for upright, work-focused sitting.
• Features a molded seat, and the host praises:
  • Durability: molded seat expected to last better long-term than non-molded PU.
  • Comfort for upright posture: supports alignment (hands/view/position described as “straight” and natural).

Mechanics & comfort notes

• Mechanics are implied to be less advanced than what C3 / NC4 offer (especially the synchronous-lean feel).
• Lumbar issue
  • Some users complain lumbar support is too high (more “middle back” than “lower back”).
  • The host agrees but says it’s still tolerable for their body.

Cons / drawbacks mentioned

• Lacks more advanced mechanics for its price (“why can’t it provide more advanced mechanics?”).
• Armrest adjustability
  • The host notes OCA armrests are only 2D in the C3 comparison context, and explicitly contrasts:
    • OCA 258 Sv2 can be 3D, while C3 is only 2D.
• Rating is not very high because value depends heavily on mechanics, though it’s still considered high for the 1M class.

---

3) Axiome / Oxiom C3

• A new chair priced between OCA 258 Sv2 and NC4 (around 1.2 million IDR in the video’s parts).
• Overall verdict: “worth it”, described as even a must-buy around 1.2M, or during sales close to 1M.
• Target archetype: for users who prefer relaxed/reclined sitting, but can still sit more upright.

Big strengths (“completeness” and materials/build)

• Headrest completeness with good fit (host praises it).
• 3D adjustments (stated as a win).
• Back material plus sleek minimalist design.
• Armrests: described as 2D (up/down) with minimal forward/back movement.
• Molded seat is praised as the most comfortable at this price.
• Wheelbase/base aesthetics are praised (has a cover, unlike some others).
• Gas lift described as impressive.

Pros (most repeated advantages)

• Best value for money among the three (at ~1.2M, and even more if discounted).
• Most comfortable molded seat in the compared set.
• Best build quality/material completeness versus the others.

Cons / weaknesses mentioned (main criticism)

• Seat-to-back gap / seating fit problem
  • Where the backrest meets the seat, there’s a perceived gap that feels too far, and the backrest sits too low, making posture feel “off.”
  • Host compares this to NC4 and OCA, where gaps feel closer/tighter.
• No sliding seat / fixed seating depth issue
  • Seat depth is criticized as too deep / sloping too far back.
  • This can push the buttocks too deep and create discomfort (especially for proper posture).
  • Host suggests possible fixes like moving the back frame slightly forward or tightening bolts to reduce the gap; a sliding seat would help, but C3 reportedly lacks it.

Who it suits best (stated)

• If the chair depth fits, host says taller users (~175cm and above) may suit C3 better.
• For the host’s own fit, C3 feels best only when positioned correctly; pushing it back fully may be unsuitable.

---

Overall comparison / scoring

• A point-based assessment is referenced:
  • C3 wins with 23 points
  • OCA 258 Sv2 is #2
  • NC4 is last
• The host cautions that the score doesn’t mean C3 is universally best—body type and sitting habits matter.

---

Main pros & cons summary (overall)

Best overall (most recommended in the video): C3

Pros

• Best overall value, most complete features, best materials/build feel
• Most comfortable molded seat
• Strong headrest + sleek design + base cover + strong gas lift

Cons

• Fit weakness: gap too large and backrest feels low
• Seat depth too deep / no sliding-seat adjustment mentioned
• Might not suit smaller torso/shorter users as well

---

Most “upright work posture” friendly (personal preference): OCA 258 Sv2

Pros

• Great for upright, focused work
• Molded seat comfort and durability
• Host likes alignment for hands/view

Cons

• Perceived lack of advanced mechanics for its price

---

“Safest entry / recline-friendly”: NC4

Pros

• Easy acceptance; “safest” for beginners
• Synchronous mechanism supports recline comfort

Cons

• Armrest feel and mobility are inferior
• More limited compared to C3 in overall value

---

Verdict / recommendation

• Recommendation: Buy the C3 if you want the best overall comfort/value in the ~1M IDR class—especially if you’re taller (~175cm+) and can tolerate/fit the C3’s seat-back gap and depth.
• Choose OCA 258 Sv2 if your priority is upright work posture and you prefer its molded seat feel.
• Choose NC4 if you want a safe beginner option with recline / synchronous comfort, but accept weaker armrest feel and reduced overall value.

---

Unique points mentioned (deduplicated)

1. Three chairs compared in ~1M IDR class: NC4, OCA 258 Sv2, C3.
2. C3 priced between OCA and NC4 (examples like ~1.2M).
3. NC4 is widely chosen and framed as “safest” for ergonomic beginners.
4. NC4 has a synchronous recline mechanism; feels firmer/stiffer and more upright.
5. OCA seat is molded, expected to be more durable long-term.
6. OCA comfort praised for upright work alignment.
7. OCA criticized for insufficiently advanced mechanics for its price/value.
8. OCA lumbar can be too high; host still finds it tolerable.
9. C3 strengths: completeness (headrest, described 3D adjustments, back material, armrest design, molded seat).
10. C3 seat comfort described as best / “tastiest” foam among the compared chairs.
11. C3 base aesthetics include a cover.
12. C3 criticized for gap between backrest and seat and backrest sitting too low.
13. C3 reportedly lacks a sliding seat; seat depth/slope criticized as too deep for some posture needs.
14. Armrest comparisons: - C3 armrests described as 2D, - OCA described as 3D.
15. Mobility: NC4 rolling/mobility described as least comfortable.
16. Ranking referenced: C3 = 23, OCA = #2, NC4 = last.
17. Score depends on body size and sitting habits.
18. Value logic: C3 is strongly recommended when discounted near 1M, but debated if NC4 is much cheaper (e.g., 900k vs C3 1.2M).

---

Speakers / perspectives

• Main reviewer/host: delivers most comparisons, personal fit commentary, and scoring.
• Additional participant(s) during seat testing: provide brief reactions/jokes, mainly about width/depth/softness/hardness and seat feel during trials, without changing the overall recommendation structure.