Best budget TV

Forums › Home Theatre › Best budget TV < $1000

lokhor

2128 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Topic # 95755 12-Jan-2012 10:25
Hi all, I'm helping a friend to find a TV and thought it might be worth getting opinions on here. Here's what he's looking for: Price: Under $1000 Size: 40-42" (If 50" is cheap enough will be considered) Prefers LED then Plasma or CCFL LCD Cheers Current Devices: Samsung Galaxy S3 Old Devices: SGS I9000, HTC Sensation, SGSII I9100, Asus Transformer Associate Editor-in-Chief for AndroidNZ.net TelecomTech is a sponsored blog reviewing the latest in communications technology. All comments are my own opinion, and not that of my employer unless explicitly stated.

1 | 2

2260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 567786 12-Jan-2012 10:35
Samsung UA40D5000, $949 from Dick Smith LED, very slim and very good on power. The panel isn't as good as the 6 series or 6600/7 series But it's still a great TV for the price I have moved across the ditch. Now residing in Melbourne as a VOIP/Video Technical Trainer/Engineer.

scuwp

1068 posts

Uber Geek

Reply # 567810 12-Jan-2012 11:12
Why not plasma? If I had the choice between a 50" plasma and a 40" LCD the plasma would win hands down. See them all the time for around $1000, and the picture quality will blow any LCD out the window, especially at that price point. Artificial intelligence is no match, for natural stupidity!

vinnieg

2260 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Reply # 567811 12-Jan-2012 11:14
scuwp: Why not plasma? If I had the choice between a 50" plasma and a 40" LCD the plasma would win hands down. See them all the time for around $1000, and the picture quality will blow any LCD out the window, especially at that price point. Yeah that's true, if it's for movies/blu-ray or TV, then Plasma, gaming then LCD I have moved across the ditch. Now residing in Melbourne as a VOIP/Video Technical Trainer/Engineer.

pgs2050

69 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 567820 12-Jan-2012 11:40
scuwp: Why not plasma? If I had the choice between a 50" plasma and a 40" LCD the plasma would win hands down. See them all the time for around $1000, and the picture quality will blow any LCD out the window, especially at that price point. Most (if not all) plasmas at $1,000 and below have a screen resolution of 1024 x 768. How do these compare with the 1366 x 768 and 1920 x 1080 LCD/LED sets? I don't think that there are many LCD/LED's at 1920x1080 screen resolution in the sub-$1,000 price range anyway.

hashbrown

124 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 567876 12-Jan-2012 13:08
pgs2050: scuwp: Why not plasma? If I had the choice between a 50" plasma and a 40" LCD the plasma would win hands down. See them all the time for around $1000, and the picture quality will blow any LCD out the window, especially at that price point. Most (if not all) plasmas at $1,000 and below have a screen resolution of 1024 x 768. How do these compare with the 1366 x 768 and 1920 x 1080 LCD/LED sets? Pretty well at "kiwi lounge" viewing distances. I'd also take a 720p 50" plasma over a 40" 1080p LCD unless it was for a very small room.

scuwp

1068 posts

Uber Geek

Reply # 567905 12-Jan-2012 13:36
pgs2050: scuwp: Why not plasma? If I had the choice between a 50" plasma and a 40" LCD the plasma would win hands down. See them all the time for around $1000, and the picture quality will blow any LCD out the window, especially at that price point. Most (if not all) plasmas at $1,000 and below have a screen resolution of 1024 x 768. How do these compare with the 1366 x 768 and 1920 x 1080 LCD/LED sets? I don't think that there are many LCD/LED's at 1920x1080 screen resolution in the sub-$1,000 price range anyway. I have both the above highlighted models, and would watch the lower resolution (larger screen) plasma any day. Statistics sometimes just don't add up in the real world. There may be other reasons why the OP's friend wants an LCD or a smaller TV, but without any further details it's hard to put a full opinion in. Artificial intelligence is no match, for natural stupidity!

gumdigger

369 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 567912 12-Jan-2012 13:40
Panasonic U series plasma, Samsung series 5 LED, Sony CX LCD Yamaha RXV657 A/V Reciever. HAUPPAUGE HVR2200 ASUS P5K PRO INTEL P35 XFX Geforce 9600 512MB TH-42PY800 Full HD 100Hz Panasonic Plasma

Skolink

934 posts

Ultimate Geek

Subscriber

Reply # 568026 12-Jan-2012 16:55
Has anyone been able to compare plasma with full array LED LCD? I presume everyone is comparing edge-lit LED LCD with plasma. A bit OT I know, since full array LED-LCD are unlikely to be available for less than $1000. Even further OT, I wonder if/when we will get consumer LED TVs. THEY will blow plasma out of the water. I did a quick search and didn't find any. Perhaps when OLEDs improve further. I actually had to make the same choice when we bought our TV a year ago: 'HD' Plasma (1024x768?) for $800 or Full HD CCFL LCD for $880. I chose the LCD (was from Dick Smith incidently). I think I would never have been satisfied with something less than Full HD, even though the plasma probably would have looked great too.

mattwnz

4239 posts

Uber Geek

Reply # 568059 12-Jan-2012 18:19
pgs2050: scuwp: Why not plasma? If I had the choice between a 50" plasma and a 40" LCD the plasma would win hands down. See them all the time for around $1000, and the picture quality will blow any LCD out the window, especially at that price point. Most (if not all) plasmas at $1,000 and below have a screen resolution of 1024 x 768. How do these compare with the 1366 x 768 and 1920 x 1080 LCD/LED sets? I don't think that there are many LCD/LED's at 1920x1080 screen resolution in the sub-$1,000 price range anyway.? The sony ex520 40 inch LED has been down to that, especially when a store has 20% off. DSE had them for 999 at one stage over xmas. Very nice screen too, it is simailr to the ex720, but doesn't have 3d or 100hz. I turn the 100hz off anyway, and it makes the picture look like it was shot on a home movie camera, and I find motion blur on 40 inch and smaller screens not too bad. PS. I would definitely get LED, as they should last longer due to using LEDs over CFLs. They use less power and don't get as hot, as well as a thinner screen, and possibly better colour reproduction. In another year there won't be too many CFL screens, and they will look like old technology, if they don't already

bfginger

559 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 568560 13-Jan-2012 18:31
I wouldn't tolerate 50Hz on a 42" LCD. I'm not a fan of the soap opera effect but I find seeing each frame jerk during pans to be worse. The P42U30Z 1080p plasma is available for under $1000. But being a low end model it isn't very good at handling glare in a well lit environment. $1000 and under is mostly in the "budget" section of the market.

mattwnz

4239 posts

Uber Geek

Reply # 568563 13-Jan-2012 18:35
bfginger: I wouldn't tolerate 50Hz on a 42" LCD. I'm not a fan of the soap opera effect but I find seeing each frame jerk during pans to be worse. The P42U30Z 1080p plasma is available for under $1000. But being a low end model it isn't very good at handling glare in a well lit environment. $1000 and under is mostly in the "budget" section of the market. I don't notice it on 40 inch or less, but I do notice it on larger lcd displays. I think the newer panels are better at handling it anyway. I've got an old 19 inch sony LCD tv and it is terrible with pans.

Marmion

59 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 572943 24-Jan-2012 20:28
Skolink: Has anyone been able to compare plasma with full array LED LCD? I presume everyone is comparing edge-lit LED LCD with plasma. A bit OT I know, since full array LED-LCD are unlikely to be available for less than $1000. Even further OT, I wonder if/when we will get consumer LED TVs. THEY will blow plasma out of the water. I did a quick search and didn't find any. Perhaps when OLEDs improve further. I actually had to make the same choice when we bought our TV a year ago: 'HD' Plasma (1024x768?) for $800 or Full HD CCFL LCD for $880. I chose the LCD (was from Dick Smith incidently). I think I would never have been satisfied with something less than Full HD, even though the plasma probably would have looked great too. By full array LED LCD I assume you don't mean LED back-lit? I have a back-lit TV (Sony 55HX925) which has an awesome picture on centre. Blacks are black, motion is perfect and I have no complaints (apart from the price!) If you're talking about the old RGB LED back-lit screens then I can't comment (I own a 40X4500 which unfortunately is not RGB LED back-lit). Interestingly Sony has released details about "Crystal LED" which would be interesting to follow into next year (possibly). As for a budget TV, I'd look at the Panny U series, 42" full HD at less than $1k, can't be too bad!

mattwnz

4239 posts

Uber Geek

Reply # 572954 24-Jan-2012 20:46
Wait 3-5 years and I guess we will see 40 inch OLED tvs, which out perform both plasma and LED/LCD in virtually every area, except perhaps their lifetime. Although the colours are pretty intense on them.

Shoes2468

261 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 572961 24-Jan-2012 21:10
vinnieg: scuwp: Why not plasma? If I had the choice between a 50" plasma and a 40" LCD the plasma would win hands down. See them all the time for around $1000, and the picture quality will blow any LCD out the window, especially at that price point. Yeah that's true, if it's for movies/blu-ray or TV, then Plasma, ?gaming then LCD ? What's the rational behind lcds are better for gaming?

Marmion

59 posts

Master Geek

Reply # 572973 24-Jan-2012 21:44
Less likely to get screen burn-in or image retention. Having said that, you'd have to be pulling some serious hours of non-stop gaming with a hud/static graphics now days to cause permanent damage.

1 | 2