I see what you're saying, but if you read the review again WHF says the C2 is a better TV than last year's still more expensive G1. So in that respect it's still good value.Almost all the comparisons are with the G1 rather than its direct predecessor the C1. Why is this I wonder? Could it be because the C1 is HALF the price of the C2 across most of Europe? I checked, compared the two and concluded that the C2 is not even remotely worth the extra, so I went for the C1 + Sonos Arc for less than the C2.
I think the point is:I appreciate your post but it misses my point. There shouldn't be any comparisons with the G1 at all. In other words, it's a strawman. Yes, it may be better than the G1 and that's good progress for sure, but in the real world with crazy utility bills and petrol etc, it simply can't come close to justifying the premium we're currently seeing between the C1 & C2. I say this purely as a value proposition, as I'm lucky enough to be able to afford either model.
The latest gen. VW Golf for instance wouldn't suddenly get compared to last years VW Passat, even if it bettered it in some ways.
If you buy gear based on a pricepoint, then yes, absolutely.I think the point is:
I'm going to spend $2500 on a TV. Will I get the best picture out of C2 or G1 at that price? Answer: C2.
Could I get an inferior picture from C1 for less? Yes.
Coudl I get a superior picture from G2 for more? Yes.