LG 50" Full HD 3D Smart PLASMA TV 50PA6700 $676 + up to 15% off Selected TVs @ DSE

Related Stores

Dick Smith / Kogan

Marketplace

• 

  Danstar on 07/02/2013 - 07:52

  What is better. This is the Samsung Tv posted from BBB?

  • 

    Cheeper on 07/02/2013 - 08:05

    -4

    Go LED/LCD.
    Regardless… i've had a better run from LG sets.

    • 

      guohaolay on 07/02/2013 - 08:44

      +4

      Stay with Plasma, much better visual and better on the eye.

      • 

        anabol on 07/02/2013 - 09:12

        picture is the matter of settings only,
        at the same time LED is much more energy efficient

      • 

        antzz on 07/02/2013 - 09:48

        +7

        Totally agree. current generation of plasma does not generate heat or consume electricity as much as before anymore and it is about as thin as LED anyway aesthetically speaking. It is not in the same class as LED power usage but will be around $20 a year max extra power usage.

        On the other hand, unless you buy Sharp quatron TV, you will not get better viewing experience than a plasma. It helps your eyes especially if you like to watch Bluray movies at night and dim your light. The excess lighting from edge LED technology will cause discomfort similar to looking your computer screen for hours. Plasma technology, however dim off light automatically when it is darker.

        Another reason is for the better contrast between dark scene and lighter scene. When you have used Plasma for bluray viewing, looking the same film on Edge LED will look duller with too much color saturation.

      • 

        anabol on 07/02/2013 - 15:29

        51 inch sams from another deal has roughly 3 times bigger power consumption then a 46 inch previous generation led sony…and btw black color looks really black on that sony…anyway plasma vs led is the matter of personal preferences…

  • 

    killergreely on 07/02/2013 - 08:20

    +2

    It would be a close run thing. I'd go with the LG as Samsung's warranty service is rubbish. Plus it's cheaper (though it does only have one pair of glasses, vs two on the Samsung).

    • 

      enjunuet on 07/02/2013 - 09:17

      -1

      From my understanding LG is passive 3D so the glasses are very cheap. Samsung is active 3D and the glasses are $$.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 07/02/2013 - 09:37

        To correct you, this LG plasma comes with Active 3D glasses.

      • 

        enjunuet on 07/02/2013 - 10:01

        My bad. I thought LG 3D were all passive? or is this only for lcd/led?

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 07/02/2013 - 10:30

        +1

        Yes only led are passive. all plasmas active.

      • 

        Trishool on 07/02/2013 - 12:38

        Boo! :(

    • 

      laser on 07/02/2013 - 12:03

      Samsung warranty is good. They sent a technician around to fix a network problem that ended up being a cable fault, but didnt charge me for it, even though it wasn't the TV's fault.

• 

  Danstar on 07/02/2013 - 08:52

  Picture quality and power consumption are 2 big things for me. Looking into it now, but I think the LG might be just ahead at the moment

• 

  ugoagogo on 07/02/2013 - 09:45

  Lg has better motion software ( although some don't like it ) , more expensive glasses

  • 

    dcep on 07/02/2013 - 10:05

    why others say LGs are passive 3D ??? that works with cheapass normal 3D glasses???

• 

  enjunuet on 07/02/2013 - 10:04

  Is the model number supposed to be 50PM6700? This is what is on the DS website.

• 

  roguenut on 07/02/2013 - 11:21

  Anyone have power consumption statistics for this TV? I couldn't seem to find any online :(

  • 

    Danstar on 07/02/2013 - 11:26

    Just seen it says its 5 star power rating.
    The 51" Samsung deal says its a 4.5 star rating

    • 

      roguenut on 07/02/2013 - 11:48

      Ok, so the typical power consumption of the Samsung is listed as 175 watts, so I guess the LG is some amount less than that. For comparison the consumption for the Samsung UA55ES7500M 55" LED-LCD tv is listed as 81.4 watts.

      Also worth noting that the LG has wifi built in but for the Samsung it is an optional extra.

• 

  yellowcoconuts on 07/02/2013 - 12:25

  would you say this is still a good buy?
  http://dicksmith.com.au/product/GE2000/lg-50-quot-127cm-high…

  looking for a TV but not really after smart/3D features

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 07/02/2013 - 13:34

    Screen Resolution 1024 x 768

• 

  Siuto on 07/02/2013 - 13:53

  Does anyone know about the picture quality? I am tempted to get this just because it is a THX certified display. The only other certified display that I know of being available in Australia is the Panasonic VT series and they are expensive.

• 

  yellowcoconuts on 07/02/2013 - 15:16

  -2

  what would be considered a bargain for a full HD tv around the 500$ mark?

• 

  srhardy on 08/02/2013 - 20:07

  I have this tv, the internet component is basic but you can buy a cheap wireless usb kbd and mouse and its usable. ABCivew works with the app but no youtube app and website version wont full screen. Its worth it for the price, awesome value but you can buy 50-55" plasmas for around $500 without any of the connectivity and you can just add a westerndigital live and a HD