Panasonic TX-P42V10 Freesat TV review now online

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the What HiFi community: the world's leading independent guide to buying and owning hi-fi and home entertainment products.

pioneer7

Well-known member
Jul 26, 2008
184
0
18,590
Visit site
I have been lucky enough to see the 50-V10 42-V10 AND the New Z-1
emotion-4.gif
the Z-1 is in a different league this set will be the next Kuro the looks of this set are superlative with a beutiful aliminium frame but the picture has to be seen, this wipes the floor with any Sony Lower end panasonics, but then £3,500-£4000
emotion-9.gif
it should be good, anyway the 42-v10 and the 50-v10 are very much the same in terms of picture quality, i am no expert in discripitive terms of Tvs i can only say what i see as far as i am concerned anyone intersted can buy with confidence, but as always check these sets out yourself.


Its funny no matter how many people give there opinions on what they see in a set whether it be good or bad people will always go with what mags/forum reviews say so if what hifi say a tv is not good people will stay away, why at the end of the day they only see what we see, its a personal opinion so dont be put off by reviews no matter how short, and i have to say the review on another site was first class you could see alot of time went into writing it, ok it was pretty technical but there are people who like to have that info, most though just want to know how the picture is and that review gave everything, and from what i saw in the 50-v10 and the 42-v10 that was spot on, very very nice pictures and yes they are better than the G-10, But wait till the Z-1 comes out that will be the Kuro beater for sure.

But who is going to listen to me, i dont work for a mag or forum.
emotion-7.gif
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I listened!

I'll wait until I've seen it running and then I'll make my decision.

Thanks for putting me back on track :)
 

professorhat

Well-known member
Dec 28, 2007
992
22
18,895
Visit site
Reviews = subjective.

You think it's the best TV you've seen = Review.

What Hi-Fi thinks other TV is better = Review.

Not sure why you're arguing - are you saying because you and others think it's better, everyone should think that? If not, why are you complaining?
 

cmf

New member
Dec 22, 2007
10
0
0
Visit site
I have been reading another european review site that carries out full indepth reviews and found the following results

panasonic v10e scored the Best overall rating with 95.7%

panasonic g10e was second with 95.2%

samsung b7000 was third with 90.9%

philips pfl9954 fourth with 90.4%

sony Z5500 was a dissappointing fiffth 89.6%.

please note this site tested the panasonic european model with extra gamma controls. but interesting to see the sony z5500 performed worse than the b7000.
 

pioneer7

Well-known member
Jul 26, 2008
184
0
18,590
Visit site
And try and say something constructive proffhat, what i am and others are saying the review was pretty short and cheap IMO there was very little time given to this set, and to be honest felt short changed, this is not the first time they have done this, and i am not thinking anything buddy so dont jump to conclusions, we are all allowed our opinions after all we all keep this mag going and if there is something we dont like or agree with surley we can express this, and i dont think anyone is arguing with anyone, to me it seems you have the issues.
 

professorhat

Well-known member
Dec 28, 2007
992
22
18,895
Visit site
Okay, whoa there! Firstly,

pioneer7:Who is complaining Proffhat

pioneer7:I have to say i am not impressed with this review, it seems like it was rushed just get it out, you do even explain what you thought of the THX Mode against the normal mode with out THX, i personally think you could have done better IMO and compared to anther review of a 50in the detail and information given was excellent and made a great read.

You have tried to cram in everthing in a couple of paragraphs, you dont even give any indication of looks, maybe you should stick with HiFi. If this is the sort of review that will appear in the mag i will not be spending my money on the mag anymore i rather stand in smiths and browse through it for free.

Maybe just me, but this looks like a complaint...
emotion-1.gif


However, I have no issue with you complaining at all (just pointing it out cos you asked!), you absolutely should. My point is, your argument is flawed - you think it's a great TV and complain people aren't making up their own mind, it's just they're taking reviews at face value and not looking at the set themselves. However, the WHF review is just the WHF team making up their own mind about the TV having looked at it themselves. But because it disagrees with your opinion, are they therefore wrong? What if an average person looks at it and doesn't think it's good - are they wrong too? Furthermore, after discouraging people trusting reviews at face value, you also then mention another review which says it's great to back up your own opinion...

Just seems a little hypocritical to me. I'm not defending the mag (much though I'm sure you think I am), just saying, stop, take a breath and don't get so upset about someone else's opinion - that is after all, what the review is.

Anyway, I'll now practise as I'm preaching and not comment any further.
emotion-5.gif
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
professorhat:
Reviews = subjective.

You think it's the best TV you've seen = Review.

What Hi-Fi thinks other TV is better = Review.

Not sure why you're arguing - are you saying because you and others think it's better, everyone should think that? If not, why are you complaining?

the review seemed a bit short on actual picture quality analysis in relation to other sites reviews , but i guess most whfi reviews are similar , they are a more mainstream magazine , maybe a little more detail could go into the reviews they publish online , to keep the techies happy , i wasnt complaining , i wouldnt really understand the indepth stuff to be honest , white balance , gamma etc , and anyway 4 stars is 4 stars ,no matter how many words are used , it just seemed strange , the review could have been more indepth with very little effort on whfis part and then no one could complain , to be honest though id say some people are just frustrated the tv may not be as good as they were hoping for .....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
maxflinn:professorhat:
Reviews = subjective.

You think it's the best TV you've seen = Review.

What Hi-Fi thinks other TV is better = Review.

Not sure why you're arguing - are you saying because you and others think it's better, everyone should think that? If not, why are you complaining?

the review seemed a bit short on actual picture quality analysis in relation to other sites reviews , but i guess most whfi reviews are similar , they are a more mainstream magazine , maybe a little more detail could go into the reviews they publish online , to keep the techies happy , i wasnt complaining , i wouldnt really understand the indepth stuff to be honest , white balance , gamma etc , and anyway 4 stars is 4 stars ,no matter how many words are used , it just seemed strange , the review could have been more indepth with very little effort on whfis part and then no one could complain , to be honest though id say some people are just frustrated the tv may not be as good as they were hoping for .....

The V10 is actually the most accurate Panasonic TV for picture quality and colour balance that they have ever released outside the professional ranges. This has been backed up with solid repeatable tests and measurements and can be seen in another review (and US and European tests). Which is why I am surprised with the WHF verdict and some of the Blu-ray comments and SD claims, they look like utter nonsense and anyone who actually knows what the data means can see that.

It's the fact that there appears to be very little detail in any of the WHF reviews and that they don't appear to be using any reference point. I have asked the question of MR Lucas and it has been completely ignored. Fine I won't lose any sleep, but it just makes me think that this is the case. Saying they are a mainstream magazine is not an excuse in my opinion, does that mean that they can just write any subjectove comment and we accept that? What I am getting at is that 'other' review sites actually use 'objective data' to back up their verdicts. WHF reviews feel like they are written using just subjective comment and no mention of what they mean when they say something and it comes accross as fluff. There are standards for picture quality measurement; de-interlacing, cadence detection and scaling tests that are widely available and even though they don't have to go into great detail and post pages of graphs, some comment on these areas are a must if you are testing a display device.

But as the reviews stand at the moment it gives me the feeling that A) WHF don't care about image science or actually use a reference point and B) that they don't have staff that even understand image science and Reference points. Again the excuse that they are a main stream magazine will rear it's head, but what about actually educating the readers in what picture quality is about and how it should look. Maybe its WHF that need some education? An interesting quote from Claire a while back that WHF staff are ISF was also (allegedly) completely fabricated if you read the comments from the European ISF Training guy on another forum, who also spilled the beans about HCC also lying about being ISF certified. So in my eyes we have reviews that need to be more detailed, show that they are actually using repeatable and standardised testing so the readers can put faith in what is being said. WHF can claim to be experts, but actually thats easy to do. Actually working with standards and showing they are qualified would add so much more credibility. Those who just want to know if the picture quality is any good on a TV are kept happy and might even learn something instead of expecting their hands to be held in making a purchasing decision. I won't hold my breath though.

Oh, and I also know that WHF don't like constructive feedback so this will be my last post on the issue, I'm sure the Editor posse will be here soon. It would just be nice at least once for them to actually listen and maybe answer without getting defensive. A wise man is one who listens....
 
Hmm....interesting arguments on both sides. I agree with professorhat that different reviewers may have different opinions. Some may use objective data, and some may not. But it doesn't mean that the review is rubbish, simply because no objective data is used. What hi-fi is a mainstream magazine, which is usually bought by someone having absolutely no knowledge of the picture quality measurement graphs. They only fill pages, & people usually skip that and go straight to the conclusion. then what's the point of all those graphs?

These reviews serve only as guides. 4 stars means very good. The 'other review' has only highly recommended the V10. It's not got the full rating even there. 7 parameters are average or good, and only 6 parameters are excellent or reference.

If you read 10 reviews, they will all vary on some parameters. That's human nature. In the same way as different people have different opinions. If you and your best friend stand in front of 2 TVs in Currys, and you both have different opinions on which TV is better, does that mean that either your or your best friend's opinion is rubbish? There's nothing as universal appeal. There are bound to be people who may not favour or like what they see.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
David Fuller:maxflinn:professorhat:
Reviews = subjective.

You think it's the best TV you've seen = Review.

What Hi-Fi thinks other TV is better = Review.

Not sure why you're arguing - are you saying because you and others think it's better, everyone should think that? If not, why are you complaining?

the review seemed a bit short on actual picture quality analysis in relation to other sites reviews , but i guess most whfi reviews are similar , they are a more mainstream magazine , maybe a little more detail could go into the reviews they publish online , to keep the techies happy , i wasnt complaining , i wouldnt really understand the indepth stuff to be honest , white balance , gamma etc , and anyway 4 stars is 4 stars ,no matter how many words are used , it just seemed strange , the review could have been more indepth with very little effort on whfis part and then no one could complain , to be honest though id say some people are just frustrated the tv may not be as good as they were hoping for .....

The V10 is actually the most accurate Panasonic TV for picture quality and colour balance that they have ever released outside the professional ranges. This has been backed up with solid repeatable tests and measurements and can be seen in another review (and US and European tests). Which is why I am surprised with the WHF verdict and some of the Blu-ray comments and SD claims, they look like utter nonsense and anyone who actually knows what the data means can see that.

It's the fact that there appears to be very little detail in any of the WHF reviews and that they don't appear to be using any reference point. I have asked the question of MR Lucas and it has been completely ignored. Fine I won't lose any sleep, but it just makes me think that this is the case. Saying they are a mainstream magazine is not an excuse in my opinion, does that mean that they can just write any subjectove comment and we accept that? What I am getting at is that 'other' review sites actually use 'objective data' to back up their verdicts. WHF reviews feel like they are written using just subjective comment and no mention of what they mean when they say something and it comes accross as fluff. There are standards for picture quality measurement; de-interlacing, cadence detection and scaling tests that are widely available and even though they don't have to go into great detail and post pages of graphs, some comment on these areas are a must if you are testing a display device.

But as the reviews stand at the moment it gives me the feeling that A) WHF don't care about image science or actually use a reference point and B) that they don't have staff that even understand image science and Reference points. Again the excuse that they are a main stream magazine will rear it's head, but what about actually educating the readers in what picture quality is about and how it should look. Maybe its WHF that need some education? An interesting quote from Claire a while back that WHF staff are ISF was also completely fabricated if you read the comments from the European ISF Training guy on another forum, who also spilled the beans about HCC also lying about being ISF certified. So in my eyes we have reviews that need to be more detailed, show that they are actually using repeatable and standardised testing so the readers can put faith in what is being said. WHF can claim to be experts, but actually thats easy to do. Actually working with standards and showing they are qualified would add so much more credibility. Those who just want to know if the picture quality is any good on a TV are kept happy and might even learn something instead of expecting their hands to be held in making a purchasing decision. I won't hold my breath though.

Oh, and I also know that WHF don't like constructive feedback so this will be my last post on the issue, I'm sure the Editor posse will be here soon. It would just be nice at least once for them to actually listen and maybe answer without getting defensive. A wise man is one who listens....

well if you take a magazine like , top gear , say there was two new cars for review , a perudia nipper ( cheap scrap ) and an audi a4 , which one would get the more detailed indepth review ?? obviously the audi , because its a big selling premium brand , and people would want to know what clarkson and his team thought of it ( and top gear know that people value their opinion ), so they would devote a bit of time and a few pages to explain their findings , what they liked and didnt like , where it has improved against the previous model , fuel economy , handling , if it was comfortable , etc etc , its what people expect nowadays ,whfi has given as much ink to reviews of a polaroid lcd ( or perudia nipper if you see where im going ) , who cares ?? , while i honestly dont understand all the technical stuff , i still want to read it , i would have no problem buying the v10 based on the " other " review , because i can see the reviewer left no stone unturned , and while their was a few negatives ( not the hd quality ) the reviewer was very impressed overall, especially with the thx setting , and i like the idea that i could stick on a bluray on thx setting and know that it was virtually calibrated ( near ) perfect , i was hoping the v10 would be great because i might be able to afford one , i cant afford a kuro
emotion-6.gif
, anyway i will wait and see other reviews and hopefully get a look at the tv myself , i think the moral of the story is , while all products deserve a fair review ( and ive no doubt whifis v10 review was fair ) some deserve a bit more substance ......simply because lots of people will care....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
bigboss:
Hmm....interesting arguments on both sides. I agree with professorhat that different reviewers may have different opinions. Some may use objective data, and some may not. But it doesn't mean that the review is rubbish, simply because no objective data is used. What hi-fi is a mainstream magazine, which is usually bought by someone having absolutely no knowledge of the picture quality measurement graphs. They only fill pages, & people usually skip that and go straight to the conclusion. then what's the point of all those graphs?

But surely the point of THX ceritification, ISF calibration etc. is that when it comes to monitors there are objective tests that can be used to determine the accuracy of a monitor's display. So when one reviewer carries out such tests, provides the evidence and makes no mention of an inaccurate white balace on the display then in many ways, it does indeed make the WHF reviewer's opinion redundant. But then as David Fuller says, it depends on whether the WHF reviewer wishes to reward accurate TVs five stars or TVs which are pleasing to his or her's eye five stars.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
whfis review of the panasonic g10 , ( Up the ante to Blu-ray discs at 1080p/24fps, and the 'G10's command of colour, contrast and detail is even more impressive.) whfis review of the v10 ,
( The
Panasonic doesn't retrieve quite as much fine detail as the best of its
rivals, and consequently lacks a touch of insight into skin-textures
and the like. Depth of images also suffers accordingly. ) i understand the v10 is more expensive , so are you saying the g10 is as good with hd as its rivals in the same price range , sony 40w5500 , samsung 40b650 etc , ?? and the v10 is not as good as its rivals in the price range , samsung 40b7020 , sony 40z4500 , and no better at hd than the g10 ?? or is the v10 better at hd .... im confusing myself now , put simply whfi , what is the best tv for hd images , the g10 or the v10 , prices put aside ????
 

Clare Newsome

New member
Jun 4, 2007
1,657
0
0
Visit site
David Fuller:
The V10 is actually the most accurate Panasonic TV for picture quality and colour balance that they have ever released outside the professional ranges. This has been backed up with solid repeatable tests and measurements and can be seen in another review (and US and European tests). Which is why I am surprised with the WHF verdict and some of the Blu-ray comments and SD claims, they look like utter nonsense and anyone who actually knows what the data means can see that.

It's the fact that there appears to be very little detail in any of the WHF reviews and that they don't appear to be using any reference point. I have asked the question of MR Lucas and it has been completely ignored. Fine I won't lose any sleep, but it just makes me think that this is the case. Saying they are a mainstream magazine is not an excuse in my opinion, does that mean that they can just write any subjectove comment and we accept that? What I am getting at is that 'other' review sites actually use 'objective data' to back up their verdicts. WHF reviews feel like they are written using just subjective comment and no mention of what they mean when they say something and it comes accross as fluff. There are standards for picture quality measurement; de-interlacing, cadence detection and scaling tests that are widely available and even though they don't have to go into great detail and post pages of graphs, some comment on these areas are a must if you are testing a display device.

But as the reviews stand at the moment it gives me the feeling that A) WHF don't care about image science or actually use a reference point and B) that they don't have staff that even understand image science and Reference points. Again the excuse that they are a main stream magazine will rear it's head, but what about actually educating the readers in what picture quality is about and how it should look. Maybe its WHF that need some education? An interesting quote from Claire a while back that WHF staff are ISF was also (allegedly) completely fabricated if you read the comments from the European ISF Training guy on another forum, who also spilled the beans about HCC also lying about being ISF certified. So in my eyes we have reviews that need to be more detailed, show that they are actually using repeatable and standardised testing so the readers can put faith in what is being said. WHF can claim to be experts, but actually thats easy to do. Actually working with standards and showing they are qualified would add so much more credibility. Those who just want to know if the picture quality is any good on a TV are kept happy and might even learn something instead of expecting their hands to be held in making a purchasing decision. I won't hold my breath though.

Oh, and I also know that WHF don't like constructive feedback so this will be my last post on the issue, I'm sure the Editor posse will be here soon. It would just be nice at least once for them to actually listen and maybe answer without getting defensive. A wise man is one who listens....

Happy for constructive criticism - it's one of the reasons these Forums exist, for readers to give feedback on the magazine(s) and indeed the site itself.

Take on board comments re the review not being long enough. I can assure you, the testing wasn't rushed - it underwent a considerable period of comparative testing, with many members of the test-team trying out its various modes in an attempt to get very best from a set with such a promising spec (and from a new Pana line-up we've already given five stars to).

However, the review online is the same as the half-page First Test that will appear in the forthcoming issue - in retrospect we should have published more of our findings online, as we have done with several online-exclusive reviews in the past.

We should also have appreciated how hotly anticipated this set seems to be - frankly we underestimated just how much store some of you seem to have been setting on the V10 as a 'Kuro killer'.

However, tech-specs and pre-launch hype are one thing: real-life performance is another, and at the end of the day, the V10 - in our opinion, having seen a lot of TVs side by side, running the same content, in the same conditions - just doesn't quite do enough to be a class-leading set.

it remains a TV that much deserves to be shortlisted, though - just as we say about all four-star products.

Finally, to clarify the ISF issue - yes, we have staff with ISF training. We intend to do more - including several team members sitting their exams (lucky them) - when the opportunity arises. As the last opportunity clashed with the Bristol Show, it simply wasn't feasible!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
but is the v10 any better than the g10 with hd ?? if not then why buy it .....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
OH man....

I sold my 32d3000 to order the V10.
I hope i will at least have greater quality pictures than the sony.

WHF, you said not to believe all hype but in some ways you were keeping it going before releasing your review.

This set was the ticket to reach the small circle of all great tv sets -like the kuro- for those who did not want to put so much money in the pioneer. At least that what i tought til now.

I was eager to read the review and get the magazine but just a few lines for so much unbearable waiting.
emotion-50.gif
 

Nick_Shepherd

New member
Feb 14, 2008
137
0
0
Visit site
Personnaly I just want to be told which is the best set at a given price point. I understand a bit about the tech involved but not enough to need a science based review. In fact when i do and they state that something I dont understand is not very good, i dont know if i should buy that set. So I for one, dont mind the shorter review style of What Hi Fi, although I am asuming that they have researched it properly.

Problem I have at the moment is that there seems to be no clear winner in the 40'-42' about a grand range. The fact that What Hi Fi gave the Supertest to a TV costing £1,800 just confused things futher. And the the V10 turned out not so great.

I think i will start another thread to discuss....
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hold that page , one of the" other "well known review sites just tested this tv , two main points , is it as good as a kuro , no , but its the next best , and , is it worth the xtra £300 over the v10 , a resounding yes ...
 

Alec

Well-known member
Oct 8, 2007
478
0
18,890
Visit site
Might get into trouble for bumping such an old thread but i can get one of these at a very decent price.

Does anyone have an idea how it compares to the PX80B (see my sig)?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
it would be better than your tv al, but not as good as tvs like the lg50pk350 imo, which sells for around £500, so unless you're getting one for a good bit less than that i'd hold fire..
 

Alec

Well-known member
Oct 8, 2007
478
0
18,890
Visit site
Thanks. for that. I think i have a buyer for mine, and the set is reduced buy at least a couple hundred (this has all happened v quickly ansd knocked me off guard so ill double check all tomorrow), so all that will mount up to a good reduction.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
al , am i right in saying you don't want anything too big? i seem to recall you saying that before..

if so and you're looking at 42in max then assuming the v10 is under £500? i doubt you'll find a plasma at the price to beat it, they don't make the pk350 in any other sizes and the pana 42g20 is still £650ish, though that price is likely to fall in a few weeks when the new ranges appear.
 

Alec

Well-known member
Oct 8, 2007
478
0
18,890
Visit site
Yes I think 42 would be the biggest in my current place, partly because i sit quite near and partly because I'll overwhelmingly be watching SD stuff. However, I'm on teh verge of a new (well, my first) sound system and vaguely thought I might get a TV to complement the experience even more. I'm very happy with the one I have so wont do it unless i really feel it.

As i indicated, things have started to move way before i thought they would because of a chance event. I'll look at teh TVs you mentioned though and keep them in mind.
 

strapped for cash

New member
Aug 17, 2009
417
0
0
Visit site
You say you can get one at a decent price; how much is that (if it's not impertinent to ask)?

You can get a Panasonic TX-P42G20 for £650 now, which would be a better bet in my opinion (unless you can get the V10 for around £300-350). And it has lots of nice features to boot (like the ability to connect an external hard drive, so you can pause, rewind and record TV).

As far as I can tell, the G20 wasn't reviewed by WHF, but on other review sites it's considered the best mid-budget 42" set of 2010.

EDIT: Max beat me to the punch on the G20 front. I'm waiting to see if there's a further price drop in the coming weeks (and hope to lay my hands on one then).
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts