Originally Posted by PCD
Well, I wouldnt say "war"
I fully agree about Panny and Sammy being the top 2 brands, but mindless bashing of LG is just silly IMO. Obviously the other poster got a bad (lower end) set and I got a "good" 6700, so I suppose those 2 anecdotal data points cancel each other out. Once more though, I say to the OP...check them out yourself then make a decision.
Panasonic and Samsung black levels have dropped significantly over the past couple years, and LG black levels (which were already worse) are still about as high now as they were 2+ years ago. That's a fact. And if you're convinced that you won some kind of lottery and purchased the world's only LG plasma that doesn't have a relatively poor black level, then please measure it for us and let us know what it is. Until then, I'll assume that your LG plasma's MLL is no better than any other LG plasma that has been measured by someone and/or compared directly to Panasonic and Samsung plasmas. Some measurements of 2011 and 2012 1080p plasma MLL listed from worst to best:
2011 LG 50" PZ950 (967 hours) - 0.0399 fL (CNET) - This may have needed recalibration, because that seems pretty high, even for an LG
2011 LG 50" PZ950 - ~0.026 fL (FlatpanelsHD)2012 LG 60" PM6700 (96 Hz) - 0.0228 fL (Chad B)
2011 LG 50" PZ950 - 0.0219 fL (CNET)
2012 LG 50" PA6500 - >0.0205 fL No measurement, but described as even worse than the 42" 720p PA4500 that was measured at 0.0205 fL (CNET)
2012 Samsung 51" E8000 - ~0.0146 fL (FlatpanelsHD)2012 LG 60" PM6700 (60 Hz) - 0.014 fL (Chad B)
2012 LG 50" PM670 - ~0.012 fL (AVForums)
2012 LG 60" PM9700 - 0.01 fL (2012 Flat Panel Shootout)
2011 Panasonic 50" ST30 - 0.0094 fL (CNET)
2012 Samsung 60" E8000 (60 Hz) - 0.0089 fL (Chad B)
2011 Samsung 59" D8000 (2040 hours) - 0.0086 fL (CNET)
2011 Panasonic 50" GT30 - 0.0082 fL (CNET)
2011 Samsung 59" D7000 (1623 hours) - 0.0079 fL (CNET)
2012 Samsung 60" E8000 (96 Hz) - 0.0073 fL (Chad B)
2011 Samsung 59" D8000 - 0.0071 fL (CNET)
2011 Panasonic 55" VT30 (2201 hours) - 0.0068 fL (CNET)
2011 Panasonic 50" ST30 (2920 hours) - 0.0066 fL (CNET)
2011 Panasonic 55" VT30 - 0.0062 fL (CNET)
2011 Samsung 59" D7000 - 0.0061 fL (CNET)
2011 Panasonic 50" GT30 (2635 hours) - 0.006 fL (CNET)
2012 Panasonic GT50 - 0.0053 fL (Chad B)
2012 Panasonic 55" GT50 - 0.0051 fL (CNET)
2012 Panasonic 55" ST50 - 0.005 fL (CNET)
2012 Panasonic ST50 - 0.0049 fL (D-Nice)
2012 Panasonic ST50 - 0.0049 fL (Chad B)
2012 Samsung 60" E8000 - 0.0045 fL (CNET)
2012 Samsung 60" E6500 - 0.0044 fL (CNET)
2012 Samsung 64" E8000 - 0.004 fL (2012 Flat Panel Shootout)
2012 Panasonic 50" UT50 - 0.0037 fL (CNET)
2012 Panasonic 50" U50 - 0.0031 fL (CNET)
2012 Panasonic ST50 (268 hours) - 0.0028 fL (D-Nice)
2012 Panasonic 65" VT50 (60 Hz) - 0.0025 fL (Chad B)
2012 Panasonic 65" VT50 - 0.0024 fL (CNET)
2012 Panasonic 65" VT50 (96 Hz) - 0.002 fL (Chad B)
2012 Panasonic 65" VT50 - 0.002 fL (2012 Flat Panel Shootout)
With the improvements that have been made to Panasonic and Samsung plasmas, the black level of LG plasmas is now as much as 10 times higher than the competition. And let's not pretend that LG is making up for poor MLL in other areas, because that really just isn't true. Chad B measured LG's 2012 flagship 60PM9700 at only 9.5 fL with a full white field. That is extremely low. For comparison, he measured a G50 at 20.5 fL. That means that the 9700 would be very dim when ABL is in high gear, even in comparison to other plasma TVs. The same flagship LG model was also judged to have the worst color accuracy of the three plasmas tested at the 2012 Flat Panel Shootout. LG's plasma TVs just aren't very good.
Originally Posted by mailiang
but keep in mind that there aren't a lot of reviews of LG plasmas.
That's because there is more interest from professionals in reviewing good products than bad products, and there is more progress being made by Panasonic and Samsung than there is by LG. It's the same reason why you see huge threads full of people anticipating the release of Panasonic's 2103 plasmas but no one is buzzing about LG's 2013 plasmas -- no one cares
about upcoming LG plasmas, because we know they won't be any good. Also, do you think that LG -- which does reference CNET reviews on their website
when the receive a favorable review -- has any motivation to send one of their crappy plasmas over to CNET for a review? Bad movies sometimes don't have early critic screenings, because the studios know that bad reviews are only going to hurt them at the box office. Reviews by CNET or others sites can only hurt LG's plasma sales, because LG's plasmas aren't going to receive glowing reviews.
The last LG 1080p pdp covered by CNET was two and half years ago. Please.
That is incorrect. CNET reviewed the 1080p LG PZ950 in 2011
, saying "the LG PZ950 series can't match the excellent picture quality of other plasmas in its price range." And more recently, they reviewed the 2012 1080p LG PA6500
, saying that the "decent plasma" is "not the best value at this level."