Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well in that case definitely get the Sammy. I have always owned Pana's (6 of their plasma's to be exact) I went to HN Woodville to look at 3d again and noted a

58v10 pana next to 2009 series 6 Sammy 63". I calibrated both sets. The lights were dimmed down for the 3d promo's.

I couldn't believe my eyes the 63 Sammy looked substantially sharper than the 58 Pana.

I have already ordered a 63 Sammy 7000 approx 3 weeks ago,

hmmm, are you sure? why is the panna so much more? Its only 2 inches bigger why is it that much?

did you order the 2010 sammy model? dont mind me asking how much did you pay?

Edited by slickstar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

hmmm, are you sure? why is the panna so much more? Its only 2 inches bigger why is it that much?

did you order the 2010 sammy model? dont mind me asking how much did you pay?

RRP for the Samsung 63" went from $6499 in 2009 (PS63B680) to $4499 in 2010 (PS63C7000)

The 63" 2010 Samsung model can be ordered online for $3399.

The RRP for the 2009 65" Panasonic (TH-P65V10A) was $6699. The RRP for the 2008 model (TH-65PZ850A) was $11,999.

It is unlikely that Panasonic will drop the price of their 2010 65" plasma by that much as the 2009 model sold like hot cakes and they had supply issues. Also Panasonic don't take the Samsung plasmas that seriously as competition. They feel they are the quality plasma provider now that Pioneer have exited the market, so they are prepared to charge a price premium for this.

Hence the estimate by CC Rider for the price difference (on the street) between the 2009 63" Samsung and the 2010 65" Panasonic.

Edited by purpleninja
Link to post
Share on other sites
RRP for the Samsung 63" went from $6499 in 2009 (PS63B680) to $4499 in 2010 (PS63C7000)

The 63" 2010 Samsung model can be ordered online for $3399.

The RRP for the 2009 65" Panasonic (TH-P65V10A) was $6699. The RRP for the 2008 model (TH-65PZ850A) was $11,999.

It is unlikely that Panasonic will drop the price of their 2010 65" plasma by that much as the 2009 model sold like hot cakes and they had supply issues. Also Panasonic don't take the Samsung plasmas that seriously as competition. They feel they are the quality plasma provider now that Pioneer have exited the market, so they are prepared to charge a price premium for this.

Hence the estimate by CC Rider for the price difference (on the street) between the 2009 63" Samsung and the 2010 65" Panasonic.

Nice informative post. thanks. you say that Panasonic dont consider Samsung as competition. But to you believe that Panasonic plasmas are that much better?

Link to post
Share on other sites


Nice informative post. thanks. you say that Panasonic dont consider Samsung as competition. But to you believe that Panasonic plasmas are that much better?

Well, more at the top of their range of plasmas they don't appear to see themselves as being threatened by Samsung.

This is a mistake in my opinion as Samsung's plasmas are very good.

Samsung are already leaders in the LCD market and they are pricing very competitively in 2010 to try to take the lead in the plasma market also.

I'm not an expert but I'd say that Panasonics are not better.

Each brand has pros and cons but neither is head and shoulders above the other - apart from in price.

Panasonic have a stronger historic brand, but Samsung have shown that this doesn't count for much in the TV market.

I'd advise looking at both and deciding which image/features you prefer. If money is a factor (as it is for most of us) you should definitely consider the Samsungs.

Personally the price difference it too big for me to ignore so I'll be getting a Samsung - the image quality and features are also excellent in the 2010 models.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hmmm, are you sure? why is the panna so much more? Its only 2 inches bigger why is it that much?

did you order the 2010 sammy model? dont mind me asking how much did you pay?

Yes I did order the 63" Sammy. I know a bargain when I see one :huh:

Not quite 2" bigger difference is 1.8" as Pana is 64.8"

Having owned many Pana's

TH50 pv60a

TH50 700a

TH50 800a

TH58 pv10a

Th65 pv10a

I think I am qualified to tell it as it is.

I was very brand loyal but my biggest bug beare was when I would go over to friends and family who owned Sammy plasma's and I could see the difference in PQ straight away. THe Sammy colours had more pop and the the picture was noticeably sharper and I emphasise noticeably..

Managed to sell the Pana 65v10 and buy the Sammy 63 7000 3dTV and pocket some cash as well.

Why are Pana's so much more? I don't care anymore

This is only my opinion and I trust you will make your decision based on what looks best for you. If it is Panasonic you still are buying a very good TV.

Edited by CC Rider
Link to post
Share on other sites
If possible

Please let me know....Anywhere Samsung PS 58 & 63C-7000....Release in the AU market or not to day?????

Hi Mick

According to the Samsung rep in store on Friday he told me that they expect a shipment mid May. They then need to be allocated so I would say May20 onwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nice informative post. thanks. you say that Panasonic dont consider Samsung as competition. But to you believe that Panasonic plasmas are that much better?

Samsung is also not sold anywhere in Japan, so Panasonic does not even have to compete with them in their domestic market.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Hi Mick

According to the Samsung rep in store on Friday he told me that they expect a shipment mid May. They then need to be allocated so I would say May20 onwards.

Thanks CC Rider,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Mick

According to the Samsung rep in store on Friday he told me that they expect a shipment mid May. They then need to be allocated so I would say May20 onwards.

I'll give DC a buzz and ask them for an updated re: the delivery date. I'm hoping to hear a similar delivery explanation from them. I don't mind waiting, as long as everyone's stories are straight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The 2009 63" model stats are:

Operation power consumption 560W

Typical Power Consumption 390W

So 43% less would be:

Operation power consumption 392W

Typical Power Consumption 273W

Samsung KR website have the power date show out today.....only 50 & 63~~~

3D Plasma 50

Maximum Operation power consumption 295W

Standby power <0.3W

3D Plasma 63

Maximum Operation power consumption 500W

Standby power <0.3W

Edited by Mick Lam
Link to post
Share on other sites
Samsung KR website have the power date show out today.....only 50 & 63~~~

3D Plasma 50

Maximum Operation power consumption 295W

Standby power <0.3W

3D Plasma 63

Maximum Operation power consumption 500W

Standby power <0.3W

Assuming a linear progression is involved with power consumption per diagonal inch, that would mean a:

Max power consumption of approx. 420W for the 58 inch model.

Using the 2009 models as a guide, the "typical" power consumption (post calibration "home" mode) of the 2010 models would be approx:

50 - 206W

58 - 294W

63 - 350W

If the "43% less" figures have any basis in reality, then this could possibly equate to the following for the 2010 models:

50 - 168W or 172W

58 - 239W or 244W

63 - 285W or 290W

Less realistically....if the 43% figure is used in a different way - and assuming that the Eco Sensor is allowed to automatically dim your TV (something that few DTV forum members would allow in their quest for visual perfection ;)) - the numbers could be as follows:

50 - 156W

58 - 222W

63 - 265W

I could come up with a few other ways of manipulating the numbers - but I'm sure Samsung's marketing dept. will do this for everyone ;)

Edited by oscwilde
Link to post
Share on other sites


can someone tell me what Mega DCR is for contrast ratio?

This is reorted to be 5mill to 1. Just like Pana's. I would not worry or take notice it is Cr@p advertising.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Samsung KR website have the power date show out today.....only 50 & 63~~~

3D Plasma 50

Maximum Operation power consumption 295W

Standby power <0.3W

3D Plasma 63

Maximum Operation power consumption 500W

Standby power <0.3W

Hmm ... not as good as I was hoping for

Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming a linear progression is involved with power consumption per diagonal inch, that would mean a:

Max power consumption of approx. 420W for the 58 inch model.

Using the 2009 models as a guide, the "typical" power consumption (post calibration "home" mode) of the 2010 models would be approx:

50 - 206W

58 - 294W

63 - 350W

If the "43% less" figures have any basis in reality, then this could possibly equate to the following for the 2010 models:

50 - 168W or 172W

58 - 239W or 244W

63 - 285W or 290W

Less realistically....if the 43% figure is used in a different way - and assuming that the Eco Sensor is allowed to automatically dim your TV (something that few DTV forum members would allow in their quest for visual perfection ;)) - the numbers could be as follows:

50 - 156W

58 - 222W

63 - 265W

I could come up with a few other ways of manipulating the numbers - but I'm sure Samsung's marketing dept. will do this for everyone ;)

LOL - I'm sure there's some "fuzzy maths" going on for some of Samsung's official calcs to get 43%

I wouldn't put it past the marketing department to get the figure from the standby power consumption and totally ignore the actual consumption when the set is operational!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the power consumption was double the 2010 models would it really matter? It’s not like these TV’s cost much to run.

There are much more important concerns like performance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If the power consumption was double the 2010 models would it really matter? It’s not like these TV’s cost much to run.

There are much more important concerns like performance.

I think if we can all reduce or energy consumption by design it all helps our environment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I was out today checking out the new 3d tv's. tbqh, i was not happy with samsung's LED 3d tv. Even after putting on the 3d glasses I could see double. lol wtf? thats 3d fail.

Since samsung are not releasing a 2010 non 3d 63 inch im going to get this one. Not really interested in "3d" but if you cant do 3d properly why do it at all?

Anyways, I found a joint that had a 65" panasonic on display. it a 2007 model and it looked ****. But the tv was sooooo god damn huge. I just think its too big for my room. I was looking at LG 60" tv's and they look too small. Im just hoping that the samsung 63" doenst look toooooo big. The last time I saw a 63" samsung was 3 months ago and I was happy with the size but now im in doubt after looking at the panna 65". should I scale down to a 58"? this is so confusing.

Edited by slickstar
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest David Tran

Is there a chance that Samsung releases a 60"+ LED TV? I love to get a 63" Plasma but with 2 young kids, i am very afraid of "burn-in". Will burn-in always exist with plasma?

Regards,

David

Link to post
Share on other sites
Is there a chance that Samsung releases a 60"+ LED TV? I love to get a 63" Plasma but with 2 young kids, i am very afraid of "burn-in". Will burn-in always exist with plasma?

Regards,

David

Samsung will be releasing a 65" C8000 LED/LCD TV this year.

The RRP will be $7499 so ~$6k on the street, maybe less.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If the power consumption was double the 2010 models would it really matter? It’s not like these TV’s cost much to run.

There are much more important concerns like performance.

According to http://www.energyrating.gov.au/appsearch/t...0&B1=SEARCH the cost of running the 2009 63" Samsung plasma for 10 hours per day for a year is ~$250.

If the 2010 model was double that it would be ~$500 per year to run.

With electricity prices meant to rise dramatically in coming years this is something that I take seriously, and ~$500 to run a TV for a year is significant for me.

And that cost issue is on top of the issue of trying to be more conservative with our energy usage.

Luckily the 2010 model is not twice as energy hungry as the 2009 model.

Edited by purpleninja
Link to post
Share on other sites
is this the only 63" plasma samsung will be releasing. Last thing I want to do is buy a new tv and 6 months later they release another 63 inch new and improved.

AFAIK the AU C7000 (US C8000) is the top of the range plasma Samsung have said they will release in 2010.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AFAIK the AU C7000 (US C8000) is the top of the range plasma Samsung have said they will release in 2010.

ohk. thanks.

also, how many hours do these plasmas last? 10,000hrs? 50,000hrs?

Link to post
Share on other sites
According to http://www.energyrating.gov.au/appsearch/t...0&B1=SEARCH the cost of running the 2009 63" Samsung plasma for 10 hours per day for a year is ~$250.

If the 2010 model was double that it would be ~$500 per year to run.

With electricity prices meant to rise dramatically in coming years this is something that I take seriously, and ~$500 to run a TV for a year is significant for me.

And that cost issue is on top of the issue of trying to be more conservative with our energy usage.

Luckily the 2010 model is not twice as energy hungry as the 2009 model.

If you watch TV for an average of 10 hours a day you need to get a life so any cost estimate based on that sort of usage is silly.

If an extra couple of hundred a year is too much to afford you need to get a job or not spend thousands on a big TV, especially if you cant afford to pay cash for it.

If you want to save the planet leave you car at home a couple of days a year, it will make more difference than what TV you buy.

Even the most power hungry TV is not a big deal to run. I’ll happily pay a $1000 a year to watch something decent rather than pay $100 a year for something I am not happy with. Any TV that costs a $1000 a year to run has such a high purchase price that the running cost is completely irrelevant, it’s like buying a Ferrari and complaining about the cost of fuel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you watch TV for an average of 10 hours a day you need to get a life so any cost estimate based on that sort of usage is silly.

Families with a single shared family TV and small children could easily use a TV for that many hours a day so it is not silly. Just because it does not match your usage pattern doesn't make it invalid.

If an extra couple of hundred a year is too much to afford you need to get a job or not spend thousands on a big TV, especially if you cant afford to pay cash for it.

It is not about not being able to afford to pay for the usage, but about being responsible with energy use. It is up to each person how they prioritise the quality of their appliances vs. the cost of the energy (both in $ and to the environment).

If you want to save the planet leave you car at home a couple of days a year, it will make more difference than what TV you buy.

It all adds up. Many people are cutting down on all their energy expenditure. Anyone who ignores all the smaller energy expenditure and concentrates on just a car is missing the big picture.

Even the most power hungry TV is not a big deal to run. I’ll happily pay a $1000 a year to watch something decent rather than pay $100 a year for something I am not happy with. Any TV that costs a $1000 a year to run has such a high purchase price that the running cost is completely irrelevant, it’s like buying a Ferrari and complaining about the cost of fuel.

Nobody said it was a big deal to run. You might be happy to pay $1000 a year to watch something decent, but the vast majority of TV owners would compromise image quality for other things that matter to them. That doesn't mean that either view is wrong or right as it is up to the person and what cost/compromise is right for them, but to demean the view of someone just because you have different priorities is pretty arrogant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Families with a single shared family TV and small children could easily use a TV for that many hours a day so it is not silly. Just because it does not match your usage pattern doesn't make it invalid.

Kids are happy to watch anything so let em watch something cheap to run and save the good TV for times when it matters.

It is not about not being able to afford to pay for the usage, but about being responsible with energy use. It is up to each person how they prioritise the quality of their appliances vs. the cost of the energy (both in $ and to the environment).

Cant argue that, to each his own.

It all adds up. Many people are cutting down on all their energy expenditure. Anyone who ignores all the smaller energy expenditure and concentrates on just a car is missing the big picture.

Fine, but there are many ways to make a MUCH bigger difference to the environment and energy usage so why be anal about a frigging TV that does not use much power anyway? The difference between current displays of the same size is hardily significant.

Nobody said it was a big deal to run. You might be happy to pay $1000 a year to watch something decent, but the vast majority of TV owners would compromise image quality for other things that matter to them. That doesn't mean that either view is wrong or right as it is up to the person and what cost/compromise is right for them, but to demean the view of someone just because you have different priorities is pretty arrogant.

Most people here profess to be very concerned about image quality, if not they would just buy any cheap TV.

If people where really worried about the environment and energy consumption they would not be looked at purchasing a 63” Plasma TV when there are many much more efficient options.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kids are happy to watch anything so let em watch something cheap to run and save the good TV for times when it matters.

A lot of people have a single TV in the family room which is used for everything, be that adults or kids at home during the day, family in the evening, etc.

Fine, but there are many ways to make a MUCH bigger difference to the environment and energy usage so why be anal about a frigging TV that does not use much power anyway? The difference between current displays of the same size is hardily significant.

Yes there are many different ways to make a much bigger difference to the environment than a TV, but some people try to evaluate all of their actions and try to make incremental changes to as much as possible within reason. That doesn't make them anal or tree-hugging militants.

Most people here profess to be very concerned about image quality, if not they would just buy any cheap TV.

If people where really worried about the environment and energy consumption they would not be looked at purchasing a 63” Plasma TV when there are many much more efficient options.

Like I said it is about different priorities for different people. Just because someone is concerned for the enviroronment or their energy costs doesn't mean that they can't also have a large TV. It is just something else they need to weigh up in the purchase decision. Two TVs of comparable size can have dramatically different energy usage profiles. There is nothing wrong with people considering this as part of their purchasing decision.

Also people on here might profess to be very concerned about image quality but the actual actions many posters take is in purchasing TVs which you condemn as being unworthy of providing a good enough image.

The point is that different people have different definitions of what is acceptable. Nobody is asking you to buy a TV which you don't think is acceptable, but similarly you don't have to attack people who behave differently to you.

The reason this exchange of posts came about is because of your sweeping statement about even if power consumption was double last year's that it was irrelevant when compared to much more important concerns like performance.

My point was that it may be irrelevant to you but it is not irrelevant to everyone who purchases a large screen TV.

The irony is that the model in question actually has lower power consumption than last year's.

However, it seems apparent that you cannot have a debate without throwing around demeaning statements and insults so maybe we should just agree to disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pana claims 100,000 hours but that is because of their controversial voltage rise which has amounted to close to 9000 posts on avs

I've been watching some of those threads on AVS with interest.

In reality, even 50,000 hours is probably longer than most home users will use a modern TV, given the rapid changes in technology rollout.

50,000 hours, even with a high usage of 10 hours a day comes to over 13.5 years.

Even if on 24 hours a day, 50,000 hours would come to 5.7 years, which could be a concern for a business but many business roll over their display units quite often nowadays.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've been watching some of those threads on AVS with interest.

In reality, even 50,000 hours is probably longer than most home users will use a modern TV, given the rapid changes in technology rollout.

50,000 hours, even with a high usage of 10 hours a day comes to over 13.5 years.

Even if on 24 hours a day, 50,000 hours would come to 5.7 years, which could be a concern for a business but many business roll over their display units quite often nowadays.

Yes very valid points you make here.

PS don't let people get you down.

Ignorance sometimes is a wonderful option.

Edited by CC Rider
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a note to anyone who has gone to a store to demo a Samsung 3D and saw the double image, then it has not been setup correctly.

Either the glasses were not turned on, someone or something covered the 3D sensor on the bottom left of the panel or there were plasma

TVs in line of sight. That is you cannot have a 3D TV next to a plasma, on the shelf or in the background. LCD tvs are ok, they do not intefere

with the signals. Bright fluros also affect the image. Some stores have them setup away from any panels or in seperate rooms.

If setup correctly you will not get a double image.

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites
A lot of people have a single TV in the family room which is used for everything, be that adults or kids at home during the day, family in the evening, etc.

Yes there are many different ways to make a much bigger difference to the environment than a TV, but some people try to evaluate all of their actions and try to make incremental changes to as much as possible within reason. That doesn't make them anal or tree-hugging militants.

Like I said it is about different priorities for different people. Just because someone is concerned for the enviroronment or their energy costs doesn't mean that they can't also have a large TV. It is just something else they need to weigh up in the purchase decision. Two TVs of comparable size can have dramatically different energy usage profiles. There is nothing wrong with people considering this as part of their purchasing decision.

Also people on here might profess to be very concerned about image quality but the actual actions many posters take is in purchasing TVs which you condemn as being unworthy of providing a good enough image.

The point is that different people have different definitions of what is acceptable. Nobody is asking you to buy a TV which you don't think is acceptable, but similarly you don't have to attack people who behave differently to you.

The reason this exchange of posts came about is because of your sweeping statement about even if power consumption was double last year's that it was irrelevant when compared to much more important concerns like performance.

My point was that it may be irrelevant to you but it is not irrelevant to everyone who purchases a large screen TV.

The irony is that the model in question actually has lower power consumption than last year's.

However, it seems apparent that you cannot have a debate without throwing around demeaning statements and insults so maybe we should just agree to disagree.

All fair enough mate but what I found incredulous was the discussion about how much less power the new models might use. What is the point in quibbling about a few watts here or there?

We know the 2010 models are supposed to use less power than last year, how much less (if any) is something people don’t get any control over or choice about, it is what it is and the only way you will know for sure is measure one.

Even if the new models use a little more power than last year what are you going to do about it? Its not like you have a choice unless you have the cash for one of the new 60 and 65” LED LCD’s which will use a LOT less power in percentage terms.

Edited by Owen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Samsung have informed me that there is approx 2000 back orders for this beast of a product.

If you have already placed an order your ETA is looking at 2 weeks.

If you are to place an order today ETA will be 4 weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...