This was posted 10 years 30 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

LG 55" Ultra HD 3D LED TV 55UB850T $1549 @ David Jones

470
LG 55" Ultra HD 3D LED TV 55UB850T $1549 @ David Jones
Go to Deal
Jase2801 on 23/10/2014 - 14:24 shop.davidjones.com.au (1067 clicks)
Last edited 23/10/2014 - 14:44

Extra $50 will come off the price $1599 at Checkout.

Bing Lee has these for $1699 http://www.binglee.com.au/lg-55ub850t-55-4k-uhd-3d-led-tv. Maybe show Bing Lee this price to see if they can match it or do a better price..

Introducing LG's brand new UB850T Series. Featuring the latest EDGE LED Dimming and 4K technology, this TV is sure to leave an impression. With a Cinema Screen design, 3D has never looked as realistic. The TV also boast a 100Hz Screen Refresh Rate and a built in Stereo Sound System.

Product Features
WebOS Launcher: Easily explore LG Smart TV
Live Menu: Watch TV while browsing upcoming programs
Smart Share: WiDi, Miracast, 2nd Display, MHL
Magic Remote (4 mode) - Pointing, Wheel, Voice, Universal Control
Time Machine: 3.9GB internal memory
Twin Tuner (Watch and Record Simultaneously) HDMI 2.0: 4, USB: 3

Electrical & Electronics 3D TV 55inch LCD TV LG TV

Related Stores

David Jones
David Jones

closed Comments

  • hoondaboy on 23/10/2014 - 14:35

    I guess you could probably get another $50 off if you bought it from TGG for $1795 then tomorrow took them up on their 30 day price guarantee.
    I've never tried it - anyone had any success?

  • Duhh on 23/10/2014 - 14:58

    Hoondaboy… I've done that last month.
    Bought a TV off TGG…and then JB Hifi had it advertised for $200 extra a week later.
    Went back to TGG and got them to beat the advertised price… and refund 110% difference.

    So yeah, you're correct in saying that.

  • LaTerrible on 23/10/2014 - 15:04
    +1

    Ah, these prices keep on tumblin'. Good stuff.

  • TRENT86 on 23/10/2014 - 15:06
    +11

    I would hold off on the UHD'S until there is enough content to be viewed in UHD, plus UHD'S are coming down in price a lot so coming xmas sales there should be great prices.

    • krisspy on 23/10/2014 - 15:42
      +9

      Can't wait to watch up-scaled sub-hd fta broadcasted crap on my tv! And thanks to tony, we won't even have enough bandwidth to stream 4k shows on the net.

        • krisspy on 23/10/2014 - 16:00
          +11

          Wireless is not viable in sustaining that much bandwidth to a dense population. There aren't enough spectrums or even transmission towers. If you think wireless is cheaper at it's current stage then..lol.

        • [Deactivated] on 23/10/2014 - 18:26
          -8

          @krisspy:

          Actually there are currently plans to explore millimeter wave radio > 24GHz range which would enable exactly that

          If Telco's only had to maintain cabled backbones wireless prices would drop

          Not that this is the right audience for such a discussion :-P

        • krisspy on 23/10/2014 - 20:08
          +5

          @marchi: So blowing money on exploring new tech would be more suitable than replacing old copper? We shouldn't invest on an infrastructure that can easily last 100+ years just by upgrading transmitters and adding different wavelengths of light?

          Seems legit. You should run for government or lobbyist for Newscorp and other cable conglomerates.

        • UFO on 23/10/2014 - 20:52
          +9

          @marchi:

          "Not that this is the right audience for such a discussion"

          What, so the general public arent smart enough to understand the Liberal Party's plan for fibre to the hub (which pretty much means that the more well off will be the only ones who could afford to connect to it?

          It's exactly this type of comment (snide elitist I'm smarter/superior than you so I wont bother arguing an invalid argument), that Tony Abbott and his peers have trouble keeping a lid on. And that's why they will be one term… completely out of touch with normal every day folk.

          The NBN as proposed by Labour would have been fair to all and a great long term investment for this country, and your lack of support and fairyland thinking that wireless on its own could possibly handle the "heavy lifting" (pun definitely intended) data intensive current usage (let alone future increases) is moronic.

          Wireless = $65 for 12Gb of data through Vodafone, or $60 for 8Gb through Telstra. I know the prices back to front, because the pathetic DSL speeds in my area are less than half the download speed of 4g… which quite frankly is an embarrassment to this country! Max 3Mb download speed for DSL in metro area of Australia 15km from the GPO?!?! Crap!

        • Diji1 on 23/10/2014 - 21:49

          @UFO: To be fair I think they have about as much understanding of that as any other iteration of the NBN and they don't find the promised 25Mbit speeds that the option promises unnattractive.

        • shadowarrior on 23/10/2014 - 23:37
          +1

          @Diji1:
          Best part is they think NBN (faster internet) is only for the kids to download movies. Why do we need faster movie download speeds? What if you take 5 minutes extra to download it, not worth allocating budget towards it.

          We can hardly host global websites/servers on local networks, we have to keep paying money to rent servers off US companies. Faster internet affects banking and stock exchanges.
          Do they even realize improving the internet has direct positive impact on the GDP?

          Nope, they still sit on their arses praying to the god of Wifi to come and save the day. They think just increasing the wifi speed will fix everything, because their limited exposure to wifi is their unprotected wireless modem they got from Dodo. The fact that it's practically impossible to have a global wireless internet system without suffering from congestion, dropouts and unstable sync speeds is too hard for them to comprehend.

          It's people like them who go and support Abbott's plan of FTTN because actual budget allocation towards increasing GDP is a fool's joke.

          Here, load this article with your blazing fast wireless internet and read it so you can educate yourself.
          http://www.ericsson.com/news/1550083

          /end rant.

        • vid_ghost on 24/10/2014 - 09:45

          @marchi:
          Put this wireless tower right near your house close to your bedroom.. I dont want it anywhere near me!
          Dont want to die an early death for fast wireless!

        • Cheap Rich Guy on 24/10/2014 - 23:25
          -2

          @UFO:

          C'mon man, Australians largely won't vote little Billy Shorten and Labor back into power so soon. He's already said he will wind back the Coalition's working border protection policy and doing that is a political death wish. Australians may have fallen for that once with Rudd but they won't fall for it again. All that flip flopping between leaders and deals with the Greens. No thanks!

          Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Fibre to the node doesn't mean the NBN will only be available to the rich. Fibre to the node should provide cheaper monthly contracts, although the speeds will be determined on how close you are to the node. These speeds have already been achieved using fibre to the node - http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2014/08/seeing-is-believing-malcol…
          You can still get fibre to the home, if you really need the extra speed and the cost will be between $1500 and $3000 to get the cable laid and connected to your house.

    • S2 on 23/10/2014 - 16:07
      +1

      I got an LG UHD TV from a previous post. I find that it up-scales content, both broadcast TV and streamed shows, very well. LG (and some Sony's) have passive 3D, so they can use the cinema glasses. I find that gimmick works very well too.
      Agreed that prices seem to be ever tumbling (particularly on this 850T model that I don't particularly like), so if you can wait, it does save money.
      If you're in the market for a TV, I don't think you should be put off UHD. I did compare the image to a friend's larger and similarly priced full HD TV and I don't have any regrets.

  • Moots on 23/10/2014 - 15:42
    -4

    It's like 4K. Why buy a 4K tv, what are you going to play that's in 4K content? Pointless.

    • krisspy on 23/10/2014 - 15:45
      +5

      Videos of other people's dogs shot with a galaxy note 4.

    • shadowarrior on 23/10/2014 - 16:18
      +2

      I don't use my TV as a TV. Connect this to a gaming computer, and game at 4k.

      How ever, I won't pick up a LG to use as a gaming screen. Sony Bravia is best for that.

    • steve-oz on 23/10/2014 - 16:53
      +5

      You realise that 4K and UHD are the same thing?

    • 9674784 on 23/10/2014 - 17:27
      +2

      Cameras take shots 4K and bigger so nice to see them in native res.

      Plus, I'm pretty sure this screen allows full HD both eyes, passive 3D. Which is a huge selling point.

    • syousef on 24/10/2014 - 08:27

      IF you have SUPERB eyesight and the colours are accurate you could use it for photo editing. I have no idea why people are in such a rush when there's no content yet.

  • aimbot on 23/10/2014 - 15:44

    According to DJ's specs it has 1 HDMI input? Yes it's HDMI2 but 1 port? LG page says 4 - http://www.lg.com/au/tvs/lg-55UB850T

    Reviews I have seen of other LG WebOS TVs say a firmware update fixed some of the early problems (blooming?) https://www.ozbargain.com.au/node/165746 also same price as this deal.

    Looks like a really good deal, $500 more than FHD TVs with HDMI2, 100hz screen. What's wrong with it?

    • krisspy on 23/10/2014 - 15:49

      You're buying too early into tech that's not fully utilised yet. When 4k blurays a-plenty this much coins would get you a better 4k tv. You can buy now and reap the early adopter's bragging rights, but you'd cry inside watching sub standard upscaled crap.

      • aimbot on 23/10/2014 - 15:57

        But if you have a 40" Samsung Series 6 from 2010 that needs to go into the bedroom and be replaced, why spend $1200 on a 55" FHD that will be redundant after a few years.

    • p1owz0r on 23/10/2014 - 18:09

      I'm not at home but it's got three Hdmi on the side not sure about a fourth.

  • lowndes8 on 23/10/2014 - 16:11

    not a bad price but would still rather a Sony or Samsung they are the leaders in 4k Tvs

    • p1owz0r on 23/10/2014 - 16:14
      +1

      Good luck getting better value from one of those brands. This is a cracking price.

  • LaTerrible on 23/10/2014 - 16:17
    +3

    Oh man, all these 'hurrdurr there's no point to 4k there's no content' comments. It's like I've travelled back to pre-1080p standard-era TVs again.

    Comfy couch PC gaming has had 4k for yonks. You can find videos, on YT of all places, that are in 4k. Duck Dynasty, yes, that Duck Dynasty, is recorded at 4k. The content exists (not all of it good, mind you, but that is a conversation for another time and place!).

    Having said all that, Ch7, 9 and 10 are all doing a woeful job of even broadcasting at 1080i (gotta make room for another shopping channel, yo, who cares if footy grand final, cricket and Bathurst are all glitchy, low bitrate 576i broadcasts. Seriously, they ought to be embarrassed), so free OTA broadcasting isn't where you should look!

    • shadowarrior on 23/10/2014 - 16:19
      +2

      Not to mention, Netflix has 4k content.

      • LaTerrible on 23/10/2014 - 18:52
        +3

        Netflix 4k is great. Well worth experiencing if you haven't already.

        A $1500 Tv is worth buying for lots of different reasons. You can buy a pretty great 65" FHD tv for that, or you can buy an entry level 4k Tv for it. Totally depends on your intended use and what you value. At this juncture in my living room, I'd take an entry level 4k over FHD at $1500.

        I feel bad for all the people out there not on the NBN, I truly do. I didn't vote coalition and those muppets can have my 100/40 NBn after they take it from my cold, dead hands :) Roll on 1000/xx speeds!

        Comfy couch PC gaming has been at 4k for yonks, yes. For some, or even many, they downsampled from 4k (or even higher!) to whatever their monitors native resolution was. Now, they can actually play at that resolution on a display with that resolution. It's great. As mentioned above, people have swapped multi monitor setups for one large, sometimes curved, UHD monitor or TV. LG are doing good work in that space, and AOC will be too once they sort out whatever production problems they're having are (see their Twitter). Also, Displayport, breh :)

        I just don't buy into the negativity towards the technology. It's easier and far more exciting to embrace all of it instead!

        • Cheap Rich Guy on 24/10/2014 - 23:03

          You're not going to lose your 100/40 NBN speed as the cable is already laid in your street. Seeing as your anti Coalition, I'd be interested to know if you actually work and pay for your NBN or are you on the dole enjoying all these luxuries while most other people are out there working and paying for your indulgences?

    • krisspy on 23/10/2014 - 16:56

      Depends on what you consider enough content to be. Sure there are a handful of videos on youtbe that are streamed in 4k… but is that worth buying a $1500 tv for? Netflix is out of the question, majority of the australian internet won't even be able to stream 1440p videos on youtube, let alone uhd shows on netflix (even if it's rendered in h.265).

      Everyone planning on 4k gaming would be on it right now, either on multi monitor set ups or those 4k tn panels. Both of which would cost no more than $500.

      • Jstrrrr on 23/10/2014 - 17:01
        +1

        I have had a triple 23" monitor setup for years. I recently bought a 50inch 4K TV to replace them. There really is no comparison between the two in terms of the difference in feel, provided you use the TV as a monitor, ie. sit within a meter of it. The screen real estate means all my windows can be open at the same time - typically the browser, Word, a background movie or iTunes, and a VNC to monitor my server.

        I think when people say there is no content, they neglect the use of these TVs as a monitor. Your desktop applications is your content.

        FWIW.

        • krisspy on 23/10/2014 - 20:14

          Fair point. But honestly, how many people do you think would consider using a 50" tv as a monitor is practical? That's probably more niche than people running sli/crossfire, even with the introduction of the cheap seiki 4k tvs.

    • 9674784 on 23/10/2014 - 17:29

      Comfy couch PC gaming at 4K for yonks? Only if you mean at an unplayable 30hz. Then yeah.

      • shadowarrior on 23/10/2014 - 18:01
        +2

        I think you forgot the part about HDMI 2.0
        If this TV does support HDMI 2.0, then using any good quality high speed HDMI cable, it can transfer data at 18Gbps supporting 50/60Hz at 4:2:2
        Tons of people have already been using 4.4.4 profiles using their Nvidia Driver panels for the 9xx cards to get 60Hz.

        • 9674784 on 23/10/2014 - 19:29

          I know it's possible, but it hasn't been for 'yonks' as suggested.

          Plus, I thought Nvidia only added 4k@60hz a month or so ago. (The new 970/980's support hdmi 2.0 though).

          So yeah, if the above has been gaming at 4k for yonks, I feel sorry for the lag you've experienced.

          On another note, LG isn't really the best for low input delay anyway.

        • LaTerrible on 23/10/2014 - 19:44

          @Phreakuency: No lag at all. recetteardownsamplingho!!.gif

  • McFly on 23/10/2014 - 16:54

    Why are there no (proper) reviews of this thing?

    • TRENT86 on 23/10/2014 - 18:13
      +1

      Because no one is buying them until they drop

  • askme69 on 23/10/2014 - 18:00

    My AMPLIFIER DENON, doesn't do 4K upscale as it's a few years old.

    So this is a waste of time for me without a new AMP?

    Thanks.

  • Trishool on 23/10/2014 - 22:45
    +1

    Why are ozbargain tech deals often turning into Whirlpool like "discussions"?

    • shadowarrior on 23/10/2014 - 23:40

      And that is bad because?

      • Trishool on 24/10/2014 - 12:32

        Because TLDR. I have a short attention sp…

    • jelko on 24/10/2014 - 12:28
      +1

      Because OzBargain is full of people who are poor and jealous of people with jobs who can afford to lay down $1500 on a TV, so they ridicule those who can. Enjoy your $299 Soniq, I'm sure it looks great!

      • Trishool on 24/10/2014 - 12:34

        If you're replying to me suggesting Im poor and cant afford the stuff posted here then youre out of your mind. Soniq? Yeah keep dreaming. Dont know where your response came from though.

      • jelko on 24/10/2014 - 12:47

        No I wasn't referring to you Trishool.

        • shadowarrior on 24/10/2014 - 13:26

          Did you just call me a Soniq fanboy? Take it back before I start throwing socks filled with eneloops at you.

  • noise36 on 24/10/2014 - 01:23

    choice reviewed this TV and gave it an OK score…around middle of the road.

    seems like a good price for a 4K TV

  • ruriruri on 24/10/2014 - 08:16

    Does it run 4k at 60Hz?

  • velcrochicken on 24/10/2014 - 10:56

    Before anyone rushes out to buy this its the same model as reviewed here http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/49ub850v-201406033786.htm

    The conclusion

    "The LG 49UB850V is not only the worst 4K TV we’ve tested, it’s also the worst-performing television we’ve reviewed to date in terms of image quality."

    • McFly on 24/10/2014 - 14:34

      It’s refreshing to see a TV manufacturer responding to constructive feedback in a quest to improve its products. In light of the various improvements brought about by the latest firmware, we’ve upgraded the rating of the LG 49UB850V to “Qualified Recommendation” in our original review.

      (Why is only a 49?)

      • velcrochicken on 24/10/2014 - 15:47

        The firmware update still didn't make the general picture quality and blacks any better though.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join